Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

turtle777 · 02:32 PM

It's on my freakin' nerves.

I assume that a minority here whines beyond compare, whereas a silent majority is really happy with the new iMac.

Lateralus · Sep 1, 2004, 10:31 AM

It's a legitimate concern. I don't see why you find such a problem with it.

turtle777 · Sep 1, 2004, 10:32 AM

Originally posted by PowerMacMan:
It's a legitimate concern. I don't see why you find such a problem with it.

I agree, it's a concern.
I'm just tired of it. Is that not legitimate ?

-t

cSurfr · Sep 1, 2004, 10:34 AM

Originally posted by turtle777:
It's on my freakin's nerves.

I assume that a minority here whines beyond compare, whereas a silent majority is really happy with the new iMac.

I agree 100%. There is nothing wrong with the video card that apple put into the new iMac. It's the xact same card that is in the current 12" Powerbook, and once apple fixed the video drivers in 10.3.5 everything was grand. If you are a hardcore gamer, you probably aren't using a mac. If you are a "pro" user, then the G5 is for you, not the iMac. The iMac is a consumer level machine and the target audience isn't the person that feels they need 100 FPS in Doom 3, they want the machine to work with the iapps, etc which this machine is more than capable of. Everytime a new product is releaed, people complain. You can please all the people some of the time, but not some of the people all the time. They'll get over it.

babywriter2 · Sep 1, 2004, 10:44 AM

You know, what's funny is that, when the iPod first came out, the vast majority of opinion was that it was ugly, hardly groundbreaking, and that Apple had overhyped it. The amount of vitriol on the MacNN forums alone was amazing.

It would be interesting to go back to those same folks and see if they feel the same way now.

- b

Love Calm Quiet · 10:55 AM

turtle777 · Sep 1, 2004, 10:58 AM

In case someone hasn't seen it over at the Lounge...

-t

Landos Mustache · Sep 1, 2004, 11:32 AM

It is fine for games i just wonder how it will handle 10.4 next year.

Randman · Sep 1, 2004, 11:42 AM

Originally posted by Landos Mustache:
It is fine for games i just wonder how it will handle 10.4 next year.

It's a freaking G5! It'll handle Tiger just fine.
I think people saying they are disappointed in the graphics card is one thing. But to create a thread on that alone just to beetch and moan is quite another.

Landos Mustache · Sep 1, 2004, 11:46 AM

Originally posted by Randman:
It's a freaking G5! It'll handle Tiger just fine.

I was talking about Core image actually, Apple does list it as supported though so I don't know what everyones freakin' problem is either.

turtle777 · Sep 1, 2004, 01:12 PM

Originally posted by Landos Mustache:
I was talking about Core image actually, Apple does list it as supported though so I don't know what everyones freakin' problem is either.

There is NO problem, since core graphics doesn't need a 3D GPU !

-t

Lancer409 · Sep 1, 2004, 01:19 PM

I am sick of the rants. I think if the video card isnt changeable .. then it's valid. But if it is changeable ... then shut up with the rants... take the 500 dollar discount on the new imacs and use it to upgrade the graphics card. the point is .. u get a better machine for less money .. most people wont need a better graphics card... i have yet to run anything other than warcraft iii on this powerbook. i play all my games on my gaming pc.

Landos Mustache · Sep 1, 2004, 01:27 PM

Originally posted by turtle777:
There is NO problem, since core graphics doesn't need a 3D GPU !

-t

Well Eug is saying that the a beta version of Core image chokes when using this card.

Luca Rescigno · Sep 1, 2004, 01:40 PM

It's a crappy video card and for nearly two grand I would expect more. But I think people are going way too far in both directions - some think they have to go on some kind of crusade to avenge the crappy video card, while others seem to be the kind who wouldn't even complain if Apple used integrated video with shared memory.

So I just kind of find it amusing. I was a bit up in arms about it yesterday, but I really don't care a whole lot now. That doesn't change my opinion that the FX5200 is a worthless piece of crap.

Don Pickett · Sep 1, 2004, 01:42 PM

Originally posted by Landos Mustache:
Well Eug is saying that the a beta version of Core image chokes when using this card.

The key word here is "beta".

Eug Wanker · Sep 1, 2004, 01:43 PM

Originally posted by Landos Mustache:
Well Eug is saying that the a beta version of Core image chokes when using this card.

Not quite. People are saying that moderate usage of Core Video type technologies on this card is crappy.

Right now it's probably not that important except for games, but Tiger is here in 6 months, and who knows how much Core Image and Core Video will be used in new releases of iLife. The 5200 really does make me uncomfortable, at least for the 20". For the base model(s), I think the 5200 is fine though.

Originally posted by Don Pickett:
The key word here is "beta".

Motion uses what is essentially Core Video. It is shipping right now. Motion serves as an excellent example of what to expect of Core Video-ified apps in 2005, possibly including iLife.

Don Pickett · Sep 1, 2004, 03:15 PM

Originally posted by Eug Wanker:
Motion uses what is essentially Core Video. It is shipping right now. Motion serves as an excellent example of what to expect of Core Video-ified apps in 2005, possibly including iLife.

"Essentially. . ."

Look, I'm not trying to get into a pissing contest, but I wouldn't judge by an OS which is six months from final release.

hmurchison2001 · Sep 1, 2004, 03:56 PM

The rants are absolutely silly. The iMac has NEVER had a fast video card. I just can't see why people won't accept the obvious. The Mac platform is not the place for gaming. It never has...and never will be. Apple has never been enthused about promoting gaming. They tried with Game Sprockets and then let that die a quiet death.

For the iMac I think people are willing to trade gaming quality GPU for a nice form factor. I expect Apple to get the Powermac back down to $1600 entry where it belongs starting mid next year. The iMac will stay at the $999-1899 range depending on bundled monitor size.

K.I.S.S

Wiskedjak · Sep 1, 2004, 04:01 PM

Ranting about it is totally silly. I wish Apple would just get over it and stick a decent video card into the iMac.

klinux · Sep 1, 2004, 04:08 PM

Originally posted by hmurchison2001:
The Mac platform is not the place for gaming. It never has...and never will be. Apple has never been enthused about promoting gaming.

Not true. Apple does want to promote gaming. This is why on the front page of the iMac it says "The sizzling graphics processor and next-generation high-bandwidth architecture kicks 3D games and graphics into high gear" and the first image of the widescreen graphics section is a game screen shot.

However, does it work? Hell no. As people have said, the graphic cards on iMac sucks. This is disappointing to Mac gamers, any Mac user that cares about graphics performance, and any PC users who play game and considering possibly switching to Mac.

Should Apple care about those people? Absolutely. What was the budget used in the "Switch" campaign? If Apple could use 1/10th of that money and port, say, CounterStrike or Half Life to Mac, it would have gotten more switchers back than compared to that campaign!

Don Pickett · Sep 1, 2004, 04:12 PM

Originally posted by klinux:
However, does it work? Hell no. As people have said, the graphic cards on iMac sucks. This is disappointing to Mac gamers, any Mac user that cares about graphics performance, and any PC users who play game and considering possibly switching to Mac.

I just googled som benchmarks for the card, and it looks good to me. Is it sooper high end? No, but then no hardcore gamer will buy a machine with a non-upgradeable GPU, Mac or PC. Hardcore gamers, should they want to buy a Mac, will buy G5 towers, just like hardcore PC gamers buy Wintel/AMD towers and replace the GPU every generation. For casual games the iMac is just fine.

Eug Wanker · Sep 1, 2004, 05:07 PM

Originally posted by Don Pickett:
I just googled som benchmarks for the card, and it looks good to me. Is it sooper high end? No, but then no hardcore gamer will buy a machine with a non-upgradeable GPU, Mac or PC. Hardcore gamers, should they want to buy a Mac, will buy G5 towers, just like hardcore PC gamers buy Wintel/AMD towers and replace the GPU every generation. For casual games the iMac is just fine.

That's just the point. No it isn't. The 5200 sucks for current games.

And I wasn't even talking about games. I'm just talking about Core Video. Nothing wrong with wanting a bit of a cushion. Some people want more than the bottom of the barrel video card for full Tiger support, at least in a 20" $1900 computer.

vader89 · Sep 1, 2004, 05:11 PM

Originally posted by Eug Wanker:
That's just the point. No it isn't. The 5200 sucks for current games.

And I wasn't even talking about games. I'm just talking about Core Video. Nothing wrong with wanting a bit of a cushion. Some people want more than the bottom of the barrel video card for full Tiger support, at least in a 20" $1900 computer.

I can't think of one game currently out for mac that the 5200 can't handle.

Eug Wanker · Sep 1, 2004, 05:17 PM

Originally posted by vader89:
I can't think of one game currently out for mac that the 5200 can't handle.

Actually, the game I'm most interested in is Doom III, which ain't out yet. (ID has already said it's coming for the Mac, but they haven't said when. It's already out for the PC though.) Even on the PC, Doom III is terrible on the 5200.

klinux · Sep 1, 2004, 05:22 PM

Originally posted by Don Pickett:
I just googled som benchmarks for the card, and it looks good to me. Is it sooper high end? No, but then no hardcore gamer will buy a machine with a non-upgradeable GPU, Mac or PC. Hardcore gamers, should they want to buy a Mac, will buy G5 towers, just like hardcore PC gamers buy Wintel/AMD towers and replace the GPU every generation. For casual games the iMac is just fine.

No one is complaining that it is not high end but it is not even close to the middle end.

Take a look at the chart at http://graphics.tomshardware.com/gra...ournament_2003 for an example. This is for PC cards running PC UT2k3 so take it with a grain of salt.

The 5200 scored a 33 placing it right between a Radeon 9000 Pro and a GF4 MX. This is ancient hardware performance. For an eMac, fine. For a Mac between $1300-$200, I think those that complains have a right reason.

d0ubled0wn · Sep 1, 2004, 05:33 PM

Opengl based games may actually do quite well if this benchmark figure is any indication:

Eug Wanker · Sep 1, 2004, 05:37 PM

Originally posted by klinux:
No one is complaining that it is not high end but it is not even close to the middle end.

Take a look at the chart at http://graphics.tomshardware.com/gra...ournament_2003 for an example. This is for PC cards running PC UT2k3 so take it with a grain of salt.

The 5200 scored a 33 placing it right between a Radeon 9000 Pro and a GF4 MX. This is ancient hardware performance. For an eMac, fine. For a Mac between $1300-$200, I think those that complains have a right reason.

Actually, it gets 42. You're looking at the wrong 5200. The iMac has the Ultra. However, the 9600 XT gets 70.

But like I said, I'm more interested in Doom III. I suspect that the G5 1.8 with 9600 XT will be mediocre with Doom III, but the 5200 Ultra in the G5 iPodMac will make it almost unplayable.

The sad part for Apple is that I would have bought the 20", had there been a $50 upgrade on the 20" for the 9600 XT (or even the 9600 Pro).

d0ubled0wn · Sep 1, 2004, 05:39 PM

Originally posted by Eug Wanker:
But like I said, I'm more interested in Doom III. I suspect that the G5 1.8 with 9600 XT will be mediocre with Doom III, but the 5200 Ultra in the G5 iPodMac will make it almost unplayable.

I would have bought the 20", had there been a $50 upgrade on the 20" for the 9600 XT (or even the 9600 Pro).

Ahem... please see my post above.

Eug Wanker · 07:06 PM

Originally posted by d0ubled0wn:
Ahem... please see my post above.

Your post is irrevelant for Doom III, since neither game is Doom III.

We ALREADY know that Doom III sucks on the 5200.

The 9600 XT with medium quality settings gets twice the frame rate of the 5200 with low quality settings. ie. On a PC, the 5200 basically makes Doom III unplayable, even at 800x600 on low settings. The 9600 XT is usable at 800x600.

Usable is all I want. I don't need a 9800 Pro.

And looking at this, I'm not surprised that people complain about Motion on the 64 MB 5200.

ApeInTheShell · Sep 1, 2004, 06:54 PM

I haven't heard many of these rants but I am sure there is some validity in them. However, I think changing the graphics to 128mb for the high-end iMac would not be consistent with the Power Mac G5 offerings. We need to remember that gamers should not be left out of the picture nor should they be the center.

If you come from the pc gaming side you are no doubt used to exchanging old video cards for new ones and demand the best out of your pc. College gamers can expect to trade out their old Dell laptop for a new one in 2-3 years. AIO's are rare in the gaming world if ever and one of the reasons switchers and mac gamers alike wanted the new iMac to be a Cube or Pizzabox.

It is some peoples desire to see more game developers come to the Mac platform. Yet there continues to be resistance to releasing mac games because it has been believed and shown that the Mac was not created for games. I think the gaming community has become too concerned with numbers and figures. Ask yourself, "When did I last enjoy a mac game?" If you can't answer that right away I challenge you to find an old mac game and start playing. Compare it to newer mac games and come back to report what you experienced. All I am asking for is a reason to own a Mac for games.

The iMac is a consumer machine meaning it is for the beginner to intermediate user. The advanced user (professional) should buy a Powerbook or Power Mac. iMac users are broad but the general direction has been toward a digital lifestyle which includes music, movies and pictures. Some artists and videographers will be using the iMac for their own reasons. I didn't explain all the uses for the iMac other than gaming because they are obvious to a majority of us. You can always check out Apple's site. Thanks for reading. Have a nice day!

d0ubled0wn · Sep 1, 2004, 07:28 PM

Originally posted by Eug Wanker:
Your post is irrevelant for Doom III, since neither game is Doom III.

We ALREADY know that Doom III sucks on the 5200.

My apologies. I only knew that Nvidia cards generally perform better at opengl than ATI.

Rev-O · Sep 1, 2004, 07:30 PM

Originally posted by Landos Mustache:
Well Eug is saying that the a beta version of Core image chokes when using this card.

Tho the 5200 is listed as a supported video card for Core Image.

BenN · Sep 1, 2004, 07:55 PM

The iMac is a premium-priced product; the 5200 is a bargain-bin component.

::shrug::

Its a bit lame, but par for the course for Apple.

However, Apple can fit a Radeon 9700 Mobility into the PB G4, which is an even tighter enclosure than the iMac, with similar heat constraints.

I wonder if there`s a technical reason why Apple couldn`t use this same GPU in the iMac? I suspect the 5200 is partly there for marketing reasons.

To add insult to injury, you can of course BTO the PB`s Radeon to increase the VRAM to 128MB.

george68 · Sep 1, 2004, 08:01 PM

Originally posted by turtle777:
[B]It's on my freakin' nerves.

/B]

It's on your nerves because I'm stealing some of the thunder of your iMac bitching thread.

Go away you insecure dipshit.

- Rob

Eug Wanker · Sep 1, 2004, 08:08 PM

Originally posted by BenN:
However, Apple can fit a Radeon 9700 Mobility into the PB G4, which is an even tighter enclosure than the iMac, with similar heat constraints.

I wonder if there`s a technical reason why Apple couldn`t use this same GPU in the iMac? I suspect the 5200 is partly there for marketing reasons.

The Radeon 9700 Mobility is expensive, and is no faster than the Radeon 9600 XT IIRC. If they could use the 9600 XT (heat-wise), that would be the better option. I do wonder if there are some heat constraints. If so, I'd be happy enough with the 9600 Pro too.

klinux · Sep 1, 2004, 08:10 PM

Originally posted by Eug Wanker:
Actually, it gets 42. You're looking at the wrong 5200. The iMac has the Ultra. However, the 9600 XT gets 70.

Yes, thanks for the correction. I too use a 9600xt on PC and find it to be a good value (and capable enough for Doom3).

One thing to realize is that chart is 8 months old and hence does not include the newer cards introduce since then. If the 5200U is already a medium-low performing card 8 months ago, guess where it is now.

DeathMan · Sep 1, 2004, 08:18 PM

Its probable that there is a technical issue. But its more probable that they include this video card to encourage the influx of video pro's to buy the power macs. They're released Motion, and are promoting pretty strongly. But they don't want to subsidize this very high end software with iMacs. They want to do it with Towers. Which makes sense.

I'm leaning toward the imac, but I'll need to see how Motion and FCP run on it first. It would be fun to play with MayaPLE also. I'm thinking I'm going to need to go tower.

Eug Wanker · Sep 1, 2004, 08:42 PM

Originally posted by DeathMan:
Its probable that there is a technical issue. But its more probable that they include this video card to encourage the influx of video pro's to buy the power macs. They're released Motion, and are promoting pretty strongly. But they don't want to subsidize this very high end software with iMacs. They want to do it with Towers. Which makes sense.

I'm leaning toward the imac, but I'll need to see how Motion and FCP run on it first. It would be fun to play with MayaPLE also. I'm thinking I'm going to need to go tower.

That's just the thing. I don't need or want a Power Mac. While the speed is nice, it's huge! And it's much more pricey than I want to deal with, for that extra CPU I don't need. OTOH, I already had the money in the bank for a new iMac. But the 20" just didn't cut it this time.

If I were in the market for a low end machine for my mom, I would have jumped on the 1.6 17". It's a nice value. The 1.8 17" is also reasonable for some of my friends. The 20" is a nice value too, but the video is a disappointment for this price class. I would have preferred to have a smaller hard drive than this GPU. And Apple does give different drive options. It's unfortunate they don't for the GPU. I would have happily paid more for a GPU upgrade.

teknopimp · Sep 1, 2004, 09:27 PM

dang it, they took my vote without my comments, so here they are:

i voted for the third option. you can't take these rants seriously. people will vote with their dollars, so put up or shut up. buy if you like, if you don't buy somewhere else... then complain in the forums.

kokkao · Sep 2, 2004, 02:28 AM

I am sick and tired of the ranting and whining. It's done and dusted! Get over it! Just how many of you are both reasonably serious gamers AND are in the market for a new iMac? Have any of you actually tried this wretched Doom 3 thing on a new iMac?
If you don't like the gaming possibilities of the machine then don't buy it - simple!

Instead of constantly whinging - write to Apple and complain. If they don't get hard feedback they won't change anything, so if enough of you whiners actually DO something....!

As an aside, I read, following up on the EyeTV topic, that according to Elgato, Apple has some alterations made to the graphics card to accomodate iDVD and their DVD player. Perhaps this dictates the card?

cSurfr · Sep 2, 2004, 03:01 AM

This is the exact same card that is in the Rev. C 12" and when I had mine, there wasn't one game that I couldn't play. And, Doom 3 has (i think) 4 different video settings, all of which look amazing. They have settings for cards with 64, 128, 256, and 512mb vram. The biggest problem with the 5200 was the drivers that apple had in OS 10.3.4 That has been fixed in .5 ALSO, in case all of the "tiger torrent" beta testers, the video drivers that are in the Dev. Preview of tiger are the EXACT SAME as the drivers that were in 10.3.4 so guess what. That's right Horrible performance. I would have to say that I agree with most of the other people here in saying that I kinda think apple knows what they are doing, and Doom 3 will probably run just fine. Will be be as great as a 9800? No, but then again, did you spend 500.00 on th video card that's in the new iMac ? Didn't think so.

-cs

george68 · Sep 2, 2004, 07:25 AM

Just how many of you are both reasonably serious gamers AND are in the market for a new iMac? [/B]

that's just it! It doesn't matter if you're a serious gamer or not!

With the current video card, you will basically have to turn down all the details on any 'modern' game in order to play it at a lowly 15-20fps.

That SUCKS.

I'm not a serious gamer, I don't want 600fps at 2500X3500 resolution with 4x anti aliasing, but I WOULD like to have HIQH quality graphics at a decent framerate, and the iMac CANNOT DO THAT because of it's shitty graphics card!

- Rob

Eug Wanker · Sep 2, 2004, 07:33 AM

Originally posted by kokkao:
Just how many of you are both reasonably serious gamers AND are in the market for a new iMac?

I'm not a serious gamer. That's the whole point. I'm a casual gamer, and the 5200 is insufficient for even that.

And anyway, if you're not a gamer at all, the 5200's poor performance with Core Video should make you think twice too.

If you don't like the gaming possibilities of the machine then don't buy it - simple!

Exactly. There are several of us in this thread who aren't buying it.

kokkao · Sep 2, 2004, 08:44 AM

Originally posted by Eug Wanker:
.... And anyway, if you're not a gamer at all, the 5200's poor performance with Core Video should make you think twice too.....

I quote also from Apple:

The performance gains and features supported by Core Image ultimately depend on the graphics card. Graphics cards capable of pixel-level programming deliver the best performance. But Core Image automatically scales as appropriate for systems with older graphics cards, for compatibility with any Tiger-compatible Mac.

Supported graphics cards:

ATI Radeon 9800 XT

ATI Radeon 9800 Pro

ATI Radeon 9700 Pro

ATI Radeon 9600 XT

ATI Radeon 9600 Pro

ATI Mobility Radeon 9700

ATI Mobility Radeon 9600

NVIDIA GeForce 6800 Ultra

NVIDIA GeForceFX Go 5200

NVIDIA GeForceFX 5200 Ultra

These cards are available in today�s PowerBooks, Power Mac G5s and both the 17-inch and 20-inch iMac.

You think Apple have not thought about it in Tiger?

Eug Wanker · Sep 2, 2004, 08:51 AM

Originally posted by kokkao:
I quote also from Apple:

You think Apple have not thought about it in Tiger?

The 5200 is the slowest GPU that Apple sells that is technically able to run Core Video.

Apple itself suggests NOT getting a 5200 machine if you want to run Motion. In fact, the Apple demo guys suggest that if want to run these technologies and you're short on money, you're better off getting a crappy CPU and a good GPU than you are getting a crappy GPU and a good CPU.

Personally, I'm thinking that the 5200 actually would be OK for basic use in most Tiger stuff and non-Motion software initially. However, it's gonna get long-in-the-tooth very fast. A 9600 XT would provide for much more breathing room. I'd be happy to spend up to $100 more to get that breathing room, since I want my 20" iPodMac to last at least 3 years.

Don Pickett · Sep 2, 2004, 09:35 AM

since I want my 20" iPodMac to last at least 3 years. [/B]

I have been running a Pismo since they were introduced, with its eight glorious megs of VRAM. It has been a trooper. If you're running Motion, you should be running it on a G5 Tower. No one running Motion in the professional world would use anything else.

videian28 · Sep 2, 2004, 09:46 AM

Originally posted by Don Pickett:
I have been running a Pismo since they were introduced, with its eight glorious megs of VRAM. It has been a trooper. If you're running Motion, you should be running it on a G5 Tower. No one running Motion in the professional world would use anything else.

yes...because Don Pickett says so

give me a break

Don Pickett · Sep 2, 2004, 09:51 AM

Originally posted by videian28:
yes...because Don Pickett says so

I am a Photoshop jockey; eight to ten hours a day on a dual G5. Ex-girlfriend is an editor; eight to twelve hours a day in front of an Avid system. I know what professional set ups are like, I know what equipment they require, and I know what the big boys use. You will not find an iMac, of any vintage, in any production/pre-press/NLE house unless it sits on the receptionist's desk.

My take on this whole thing is this: some people want Apple to put out pro machine disguised as a consumer machine.

give me a break

What would you like broken?

Eug Wanker · Sep 2, 2004, 10:08 AM

Originally posted by Don Pickett:
I have been running a Pismo since they were introduced, with its eight glorious megs of VRAM. It has been a trooper. If you're running Motion, you should be running it on a G5 Tower. No one running Motion in the professional world would use anything else.

Of course, you didn't even read my post. I DON'T want to run Motion, I want to run Core Video-ified Tiger consumer apps, and I'm sure iLife will be one of them within 1.5 years.

BTW, since you brought up Motion, you should check out this pixel shader test of Motion.

Since we're talking about iPodMacs, check out only the single processor desktop benches (smaller is better):

G5 1.6 GeForce FX 5200 Ultra - 87
G5 2.0 (one CPU disabled) Radeon 9800 SE - 35

However, these are not the same CPU. So let's compare two dual CPU machines with the same CPUs but with different GPUs:

G5 dual 2.0 GeForce FX 5200 Ultra - 74
G5 dual 2.0 Radeon 9800 SE - 29

ie. With the 5200, going from a G5 1.6 single to a G5 2.0 dual only improves this speed to a small extent in this bench. However, going to a better video card makes a HUGE difference, even on a single-CPU machine.

BTW, if I had to use a Pismo, I would have ripped all my hair out by now. In fact, I sold my iBook 600 TWO YEARS AGO, because it was too slow for my tastes.

Don Pickett · Sep 2, 2004, 10:10 AM

Originally posted by Eug Wanker:
Of course, you didn't even read my post. I DON'T want to run Motion, I want to run Core Video-ified Tiger consumer apps, and I'm sure iLife will be one of them within 1.5 years.

And I still say that Tiger is a beta. I will make no judgements until it is released as a final.

BTW, if I had to use a Pismo, I would have ripped all my hair out by now. In fact, I sold my iBook 600 TWO YEARS AGO, because it was too slow for my tastes.

It's fine for what I do at home. Any heavy lifting I do is done at work.

I think one of the problems in this debate is the confusion of qualitative and quantitative measurements. People are using qualitative (it's to slow for me!) as quantitative (therefore it's too slow!) A 600 MHz iBook is too slow for you. However, my Pismo has been fine for me. I have a friend who is perfectly happy with a G3 233 running 9.2.2.