[rdf8585]

I'm 21 and was a lifetime Windows user, but wanted to delve into the world of OSX. I bought a 1.33 PPC Mini last December and maxed out the RAM to 1 GB. Now less than a year later, the Mini is probably going to back into its box and sit on some shelf.

Reasons I'm switching back -

1) I can't get past the slowness of the Mini compared to my PC. The PC has a 3 ghz Pentium 4 with Hyper-threading, 1 GB RAM, 7200 RPM HD, and 96 MB of integrated VRAM. I didn't expect the Mini to be as fast, but it's not even close. My Dell laptop, which was bought over two years prior to the Mini, is as quick. That is not progress. Even with a GB RAM, a G4 with limited video memory is really starting to choke with things like internet video.

2) MLB.tv sucks on Macs. Ask most anyone who uses it. MLB.tv dropped Real Player support before this season and WMP on the Mac is a mess, even with F4M.

3) I really like CBS' broadband channel, Innertube. It requires at least a G5 on the Mac for playback. It stinks on a G4. Innertube wasn't around when I bought the Mini, either that or I didn't know about it. It plays smooth as ice on my PC with Real Player.

4) Video playback on ESPN.com (flash format) is awful. It's choppy, especially when I "go big." Even though I don't play any games, this really proves the 32 MB ATI Radeon 9200 is not enough anymore. And it's not upgradeable.

5) Windows explorer beats anything on OSX, i.e finder/spotlight.

6) I like the start menu setup better than a dock.

To be fair, this is partly my fault too. I really didn't need to buy another computer when I bought the Mini - just got too anxious to try Macs and for once had some money with my first job. I would have been better off waiting, and waiting a significant amount of time until I really did need a new system.

OSX is a good operating system more people should try, but at the end the day, I'm just a Windows guy. Unfornately for me it cost me 650 bucks to find that out, and I sure would like the 650 bucks back more than a Mini right now. Live and learn I guess, and this was a hard lesson.

[w.jeffrey]

lol good luck with that

[rickey939]

I'll give you $200 cash for the Mac mini. PM me if interested.

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by rdf8585

I'm 21 and was a lifetime Windows user, but wanted to delve into the world of OSX. I bought a 1.33 PPC Mini last December and maxed out the RAM to 1 GB. Now less than a year later, the Mini is probably going to back into its box and sit on some shelf.

Reasons I'm switching back -

1) I can't get past the slowness of the Mini compared to my PC. The PC has a 3 ghz Pentium 4 with Hyper-threading, 1 GB RAM, 7200 RPM HD, and 96 MB of integrated VRAM. I didn't expect the Mini to be as fast, but it's not even close. My Dell laptop, which was bought over two years prior to the Mini, is as quick. That is not progress. Even with a GB RAM, a G4 with limited video memory is really starting to choke with things like internet video.

There are no G4-based Macs anymore. As an anti-Mac argument, this is obsolete.

2) MLB.tv sucks on Macs. Ask most anyone who uses it. MLB.tv dropped Real Player support before this season and WMP on the Mac is a mess, even with F4M.

Well, what did you expect? Windows Media is a Microsoft technology.

It's not that bad with Flip4Mac, IMO.

3) I really like CBS' broadband channel, Innertube. It requires at least a G5 on the Mac for playback. It stinks on a G4. Innertube wasn't around when I bought the Mini, either that or I didn't know about it. It plays smooth as ice on my PC with Real Player.

4) Video playback on ESPN.com (flash format) is awful. It's choppy, especially when I "go big." Even though I don't play any games, this really proves the 32 MB ATI Radeon 9200 is not enough anymore. And it's not upgradeable.

The G4 sucked, this is true. However, it is now dead...

5) Windows explorer beats anything on OSX, i.e finder/spotlight.

Matter of opinion.

6) I like the start menu setup better than a dock.

The start menu can be emulated if you like it - just drag the Applications folder into the Dock. Either right-clicking on the folder or holding the left button down will cause a menu to spring up that contains your applications, exactly like the Start Menu.

[tooki]

[/quote]

Originally Posted by rdf8585

1) I can't get past the slowness of the Mini compared to my PC. The PC has a 3 ghz Pentium 4 with Hyper-threading, 1 GB RAM, 7200 RPM HD, and 96 MB of integrated VRAM. I didn't expect the Mini to be as fast, but it's not even close. My Dell laptop, which was bought over two years prior to the Mini, is as quick. That is not progress. Even with a GB RAM, a G4 with limited video memory is really starting to choke with things like internet video.

Ummm... duh. A G4 was a total entry-level machine at that time, and the Mac mini was sold as a total entry-level machine. A basic Celeron PC would similarly get its ass whooped by a 3GHz P4.

Also don't forget that the mini's use laptop drives, and the early ones in particular used slow 4200RPM drives.

2) MLB.tv sucks on Macs. Ask most anyone who uses it. MLB.tv dropped Real Player support before this season and WMP on the Mac is a mess, even with F4M.

Though it sucks, that's really the site's fault for not using an open, compatible format. Instead they chose to go with MS's proprietary crap.

3) I really like CBS' broadband channel, Innertube. It requires at least a G5 on the Mac for playback. It stinks on a G4. Innertube wasn't around when I bought the Mini, either that or I didn't know about it. It plays smooth as ice on my PC with Real Player.

What video format is it using?

4) Video playback on ESPN.com (flash format) is awful. It's choppy, especially when I "go big." Even though I don't play any games, this really proves the 32 MB ATI Radeon 9200 is not enough anymore. And it's not upgradeable.

Flash movies are not dependent on the GPU. They are, however, rather CPU-intensive, especially on the admittedly lousy implementation on OS X. That said, Youtube and Google Video both use Flash, and they work fine zoomed up on my 1.25GHz G4.

Video formats that can use hardware acceleration (e.g. QuickTime, MPEG, F4M, and Real) all play back beautifully on that GPU, provided the CPU can decode quickly enough. (A G4 is not fast enough to do high-definition video, for example, even though the 9200 can easily handle it.)

5) Windows explorer beats anything on OSX, i.e finder/spotlight.

6) I like the start menu setup better than a dock.

Well, the Dock is hardly the only way to do things. Just as on Windows, you could find ways you like to do things.

tooki

[rdf8585]

Well like I said, it was probably the worst computing decision I ever made. But I'm not going to be one of those people who come on here and smash OSX because it's a good OS but just not my prefernce. Maybe if I had a similiar hardware setup like my PC then it could be different. I'm not even sure if the current $999 iMac would be substantially better than my PC. Just for comparison purposes - the iMac would be the wrong choice for me as don't need a monitor.... got a 19 inch LCD two months ago. Too bad the Mini is the only decently priced Mac w/o a monitor being automatically included. Most PC makers will have a monitor option.

Innertube uses RP or WMP but the reqs specifically state G5 or higher. I believe it based on playback on my G4. FWIW, all you need on a PC is a 600 mhz P3.

My Mini was a "late 2005" so it went from 1.25 to 1.33 and I believe 4200 RPM to 5400 RPM ... but only the model that went from 1.42 to 1.5 ghz G4 got the 64 MB VRAM on the Radeon 9200.

Youtube works reasonably well, which is why I'm not sure why flash videos on espn.com were choppy.

[Thinine]

No, I'm pretty sure that iMac would be faster than the PC you mentioned. Of course, that model does have integrated graphics, so I would recommend the $1199 model.

The current Mini's are also a lot more competitive than the G4 minis ever were. Dual processors alone make it much more usable.

[MacGallant]

I tried out the CBS innertube broadband channel on my PowrMac G4.

And yeah it is kinda choppy when played through my Safari's web browser window.

However when I go full screen the CBS tv shows are smooth as butter!

Strange huh?

[EFFENDI]

Originally Posted by w.jeffrey

lol good luck with that

What he said. Enjoy Mac OS V(ista)

[JKT]

Originally Posted by rdf8585

Reasons I'm switching back -
5) Windows explorer beats anything on OSX, i.e finder/spotlight.

6) I like the start menu setup better than a dock.

No arguments up to those two, then it's a case of "WTF - are you insane?"

[Andy8]

Originally Posted by rdf8585

I'm 21 and was a lifetime Windows user, but wanted to delve into the world of OSX. I bought a 1.33 PPC Mini last December and maxed out the RAM to 1 GB. Now less than a year later, the Mini is probably going to back into its box and sit on some shelf.

Reasons I'm switching back -

1) I can't get past the slowness of the Mini compared to my PC. The PC has a 3 ghz Pentium 4 with Hyper-threading, 1 GB RAM, 7200 RPM HD, and 96 MB of integrated VRAM. I didn't expect the Mini to be as fast, but it's not even close. My Dell laptop, which was bought over two years prior to the Mini, is as quick. That is not progress. Even with a GB RAM, a G4 with limited video memory is really starting to choke with things like internet video.

2) MLB.tv sucks on Macs. Ask most anyone who uses it. MLB.tv dropped Real Player support before this season and WMP on the Mac is a mess, even with F4M.

3) I really like CBS' broadband channel, Innertube. It requires at least a G5 on the Mac for playback. It stinks on a G4. Innertube wasn't around when I bought the Mini, either that or I didn't know about it. It plays smooth as ice on my PC with Real Player.

4) Video playback on ESPN.com (flash format) is awful. It's choppy, especially when I "go big." Even though I don't play any games, this really proves the 32 MB ATI Radeon 9200 is not enough anymore. And it's not upgradeable.

5) Windows explorer beats anything on OSX, i.e finder/spotlight.

6) I like the start menu setup better than a dock.

To be fair, this is partly my fault too. I really didn't need to buy another computer when I bought the Mini - just got too anxious to try Macs and for once had some money with my first job. I would have been better off waiting, and waiting a significant amount of time until I really did need a new system.

OSX is a good operating system more people should try, but at the end the day, I'm just a Windows guy. Unfornately for me it cost me 650 bucks to find that out, and I sure would like the 650 bucks back more than a Mini right now. Live and learn I guess, and this was a hard lesson.

au revoir

[- - e r i k - -]

The mini obviously wasn't for you. It's a slow system, and your arguments seem to stem from that.

Personally I can't stand Windows and it's horrible idiosyncrasies and every time I'm forced to use it I discover something new that makes me throw my hands up in the air and say "What the f*ck did it do that for?" or "Why the hell can't I do this?". Example: I select a bunch of files and double-click them, only one of them opens. Huh? And don't even get me started with MDI. Here's looking at you Adobe! Grrrr.

In contrast working with a brand new MacPro is computing bliss. But then again I have an ultra-demanding workflow and am lucky to require such a beast.

Good luck in your future choices though. Seems like you are going to need it.

[alphasubzero949]

As much as the Finder and Spotlight suck, Explorer is even worse.

[rickey939]

Originally Posted by rickey939

I'll give you $200 cash for the Mac mini. PM me if interested.

I'll pay shipping as well.

[cruisereg]

I have a Mac and have been using Macs on and off since the late 80's. I understand your issues and they are what they are. Computing truly comes down to applications. The best OS/computing platform in the world is useless if it doesn't run the applications that *YOU* need/want. This is why I have other machines (Windows and Linux machines). Between all of my machines, at least *one* of them can do what I need it to, when I need it done.

It'd kill me to be stuck on a single platform/OS. That being said, I find myself using my Macbook more and more everyday. The Macbook replaced a Dual 2GHz G5 that *rarely* got used over its two year lifespan. Long live the Intel Macs.

[Grrr]

Have fun with your BSOD's and Viruses.
Bye

[ghporter]

A Windows user doesn't need to deal with BSODs or viruses if he/she's careful and consistent. However, comparing an ENTRY LEVEL Mac to almost any non-entry level PC is unfair in both directions. A Mini is a "desktop" like the early eMachines computers were, well, computers. Only by convention, not by functionality.

Find a buyer for the G4 Mini, and buy ANY OTHER Mac before you "give up" on the platform.

[lookmark]

Sorry to hear you're disappointed, but the G4 mini is simply not a fast machine, so disappointment may have been inevitable. Why do you say you're out $650, though? Ebay that sucker for a few hundred and move on.

[cruisereg]

I agree that the G4 is entry level. I had a Powerbook G4 for work and for the applications I needed to run, it was all wrong for me because it was wicked slow. I went back to a Thinkpad running Windows. Again, Intel has made a world of difference. I also agree that just about any Intel based machine, even a Core solo Mini with sufficient memory its a nicely performing box. Do *not* evaluate one with only stock RAM - it resorts to swapping too quickly.

[rdf8585]

I might as well just hang on to it in case something goes wrong with the PC, i.e it konks out on me. I haven't had any security software on here in 2 years and haven't had any problems. Behave yourself online and you likely won't get bothered with them. Unfornately most people visit sites they shouldn't and download things that they're not sure where/who they're coming from.

I'm not giving up on Macs. When this PC becomes inadequate for my basic needs (browsing, chat etc - stuff the G4 couldn't fully handle i.e web video) .... well, then I'll look at Macs again. Maybe even a Mini or a Macbook .... since all I need would be the actual computer, the Mini is the only Apple desktop that makes sense.... it didn't last year but could in another year or two.

I remember when I bought the Mini several people told me a 1.33 G4 was = to a 2.66 Pentium 4 but my college library has "old" 1.8 ghz Pentium 4's that run quicker and those systems sure don't have a GB of RAM like my Mini did. I'm not sure if those people were right or not, but I know there's one site that tests browsing speed and says a 400 mhz mac was = to a 800 mhz Pentium.

[Person Man]

Originally Posted by rdf8585

I'm not giving up on Macs. When this PC becomes inadequate for my basic needs (browsing, chat etc - stuff the G4 couldn't fully handle i.e web video) .... well, then I'll look at Macs again. Maybe even a Mini or a Macbook .... since all I need would be the actual computer, the Mini is the only Apple desktop that makes sense.... it didn't last year but could in another year or two.

Well, now that Macs are Intel-based, you could still run Windows on them alongside OS X and get the best of both worlds.

Originally Posted by rdf8585

I remember when I bought the Mini several people told me a 1.33 G4 was = to a 2.66 Pentium 4 but my college library has "old" 1.8 ghz Pentium 4's that run quicker and those systems sure don't have a GB of RAM like my Mini did. I'm not sure if those people were right or not, but I know there's one site that tests browsing speed and says a 400 mhz mac was = to a 800 mhz Pentium.

Well, I'm not sure what the people telling you a 1.33 G4 = 2.66 P4 were smoking, but back in the early days, the PPC chip was, clock for clock, faster than equivalent MHz Intel chips. But then the PPC chip makers stagnated. The G4 topped out at 500 MHz for almost 2 years, IIRC, which gave Intel and AMD plenty of time to catch up and surpass them. IBM was supposed to be the savior with the G5, and then they lost interest in providing Apple with a version of the G5 that could go into a laptop.

[walkerjs]

It looks like you have four media related issues, and two useabiliy dislikes about the Mac. The first are dependent partially on external factors and the latter are "it's just not for you".

I suppose where you are coming from in making the switch has a bearing on your experience. I came from a Linux/UNIX platform to the Mac, and getting video or even audio to work AT ALL on those machines was an adventure to say the least.

And to be fair, properly configured windows machines don't crash nearly like they used to, so as one poster said, au revior and have fun. Those of us who prefer all the little things that Mac OS X provides will keep trucking on. Those of us who have the latest/greatest hardware from Apple will do so while enjoying all the fancy video and streaming media as well or better than those using Windows.

[mitchell_pgh]

At least you tried.

You had some legitimate issues. The finder can be rather sluggish at times, and MANY news websites just haven't figured out how to get their acts together regarding video.

That being said, I wouldn't even consider switching. The elegance of the OS, wonderfully programmed applications and consistent nature have won me over, and I'm sure it will only get better.

[sieb]

Ebay it or make it a network files server and get yourself an Intel based iMac or Mini, then you won't notice a difference from a PC.

[rdf8585]

I don't think many news websites have problems with video.... but on a Mac, it can be a rather poor experience if you need to rely on F4M. And of course it will be a poor experience if your system isn't quick enough to not make the video sluggish.

I really didn't care for the brushed metal theme either. I could live with it, but it's not visually pleasing to me, and Aqua is far better. All OSX apps should use Aqua IMO. Unfornately, Safari, itunes and ichat use BM. I'm aware of alternatives, but still. Also, I think I'm one of the few people who likes the default Windows XP theme.

Another issue I have/had was Safari in general... it eats way, way too much RAM. With only a few hours of browsing, it got as high as 700 MB and often between 200-400 MB. That's just too much and I shouldn't have to reset/close the browser every now and then to alleviate it. Firefox, on its worst days, would use 180 MB for me. I actually got some pageouts one time when Safari went haywire. I also miss not being able to force links to open up in the same window, as in Firefox's options.... sometimes links open in a new window in Safari, not cool.

[Big Mac]

Seems like you have very minor issues, but as you noted OS X isn't for everyone. I never have memory leak problems with Safari. On my G5 four copies of Safari are running at once, with multiple tabs in each; I never experience memory leaks. And if you don't like Safari, you have Firefox and other alternatives available.

[mdc]

Originally Posted by rdf8585

I really didn't care for the brushed metal theme either. I could live with it, but it's not visually pleasing to me, and Aqua is far better. All OSX apps should use Aqua IMO. Unfornately, Safari, itunes and ichat use BM. I'm aware of alternatives, but still. Also, I think I'm one of the few people who likes the default Windows XP theme.

The 10.4 and below's version of Brushed Metal is being fazed out and all signs indicate that it will become Dark Unified (like the new iTunes) and Aqua will become Unified (new Mail.app).

There are reasons why some applications are Aqua and some are Brushed Metal. The Apple Human Interface Guidelines go into a lot of detail.

You can use a brushed metal window if your application:

• Is a single-window application that provides a source list to navigate information—for example, iTunes or the Finder
• Strives to re-create a familiar physical device—Calculator or DVD Player, for example
• Provides an interface for a digital peripheral, such as a camera, or an interface for managing data shared with digital peripherals—iPhoto or iSync, for example

You should not use a brushed metal window if your application:

• Is a multi-window application—for example, Interface Builder
• Is a document-based application—for example, TextEdit

Apple Human Interface Guidelines: Window Appearance

[TheoCryst]

Well, you gave it a shot. In the end, Macs are not 100% superior to Windows boxes in every way, and are just not right for everyone. And like you said, the G4 Mini is painfully slow and, quite frankly, was outdated years before it was released. I'm glad, however, that you haven't decided to completely give up on OS X because of this. Just make sure you consider a newer Mac next time you need a PC and I'll be content. And don't forget that every Intel Mac currently in production will run Vista beautifully when it is released.

PS: As a recent switcher, I understand your initial preference for Explorer over the Finder/Spotlight combination. I also promise that both Explorer and Finder are simply acquired tastes, and you will feel more comfortable with whichever you use more often.

PPS: I've noticed that F4M performance is outright terrible on G4 systems; I can't speak for G5s personally, but the Intel chips seem much better at decoding video than PPC.

[TheoCryst]

You should not use a brushed metal window if your application:

• Is a multi-window application—for example, Interface Builder
• Is a document-based application—for example, TextEdit

So where does that leave Safari? Hmm...

[rdf8585]

Originally Posted by TheoCryst

And like you said, the G4 Mini is painfully slow and, quite frankly, was outdated years before it was released.

Then where does that leave the last G4 iBooks? They are almost identical to the final G4 Minis, except the iBooks had a Radeon 9550 as opposed to a 9200. Personally, I'd be pissed if I dropped 1000+ on a notebook considered "outdated years before it was released."

[Big Mac]

Most will say they too were very much outdated. Jobs cited the laptop line's performance needs as one of the biggest driving factors motivating the Intel defection.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by rdf8585

Then where does that leave the last G4 iBooks? They are almost identical to the final G4 Minis, except the iBooks had a Radeon 9550 as opposed to a 9200. Personally, I'd be pissed if I dropped 1000+ on a notebook considered "outdated years before it was released."

There were plenty of good reasons in favor of the iBooks, and lots of things that made - and make - them great machines.

Cutting-edge, breath-taking speed never was one of them, though.

[rdf8585]

I remember the speculation when I bought my Mini that iBooks would be first to go Intel - and at $799 to boot. That would have been wonderful. Guess they weren't THAT concerned about laptop performance as the iBooks were among the last to go Intel.

[kmkkid]

Now you're just trolling. G4 is dead, and has been dead for years. Apple just couldn't come up with anything better at the time (other than the G5 which was meant for the higher end desktops). That's why they switched to Intel.


The Macs are all Intel now, and you have no real reason to be complaining about G4 speed, when all the components in that mini are at least outdated 3X over.

I mean come on, you expect a 1.33Ghz G4, with only 32MB video RAM to outperform a newish P4? Should have been common sense before you even bought the thing.

Oh well, like you said, live and learn.

Personally I wasn't even considering a Mac until they came out with the G5's, or something better, because I knew the G4's were crap for this day in age.

[mac128k-1984]

Originally Posted by Grrr

Have fun with your BSOD's and Viruses.
Bye

As much as I like OSX and Macs, you cannot say BSOD's any more. MS has a really stable OS in XP.

I've been using XP for some time on my work laptop and it crashes as frequently (or infrequently) as OSX does. It does force you to reboot for the sillest things, like uninstalling a text editor - absolutely ludicrous. Regardless it is a very stable OS.

Besides, if XP truly sucked why does it seem so many Mac users have been froathing at the mouth with boot camp and parallels. I use boot camp because I have to (some software is windows only) but I'm not all worked up about it like so many people are (visit the boot camp forum over at apple discussions).

[rdf8585]

I haven't seen the BSOD since Windows ME.

And I never expected the Mini to "outpreform" my "newish P4" ... but based on what people were telling me, I thought it would be close. I mean, people said "with Macs you can just double the clock speed" and thats how fast it would be in the Windows world. One of those people that told me that is a personal friend of mine that has used Macs for 10+ years.

Then there was this video that said a 867 MHZ G4 was faster than a 1.7 P4. http://pulsar.esm.psu.edu/Faculty/Gr..._myth_320f.mov

I know that video is somewhat old, but it significantly cooled down my fears that "why would I buy a 1.33 system when I bought a 1.4 P4 system... in 2001?"

[- - e r i k - -]

Sounds like you were suckered in by overenthusiastic Mac-fans. While generally true, you should also be aware that Mac OS X runs Quartz, a modern PDF-based compositing engine for it's UI which makes it do a whole lot more than Windows can, but pulls more weight and can feel more sluggish on the same hardware than what is currently used in Windows XP. With Windows Vista that will all change of course and they will become more equal now both in features and in hardware requirements (Vista has an even more hardware hitting system).

Anyway, UNO kills brushed metal.

[rdf8585]

UNO does look nice. I can see what you mean about "feeling" sluggish. For whatever reason, Safari "feels" more sluggish than other Mac browsers I've tried, and there's not many I haven't.

[pyrite]

i agree with all of the above. you wanted speed and you bought a G4 mac mini.. this is not a problem with mac, it's just a bad CHOICE of mac. buy a macbook/macbook pro/mac pro and we'll see which side you're on. as for your OS X complaints, it seems you haven't explored many customization options, you can get much of the functionality you claim is 'lacking' with 3rd party products. fruitmenu would be a great start

[rdf8585]

well just today actually i've been fooling around with Safaricon, which is nice. I've never even heard of fruit menu, and I'm usually at least aware of major freeware aps. Worth a look.

[- - e r i k - -]

I would suggest selling the mini and buy a recent Intel mac. At least you have the option of Windows if you find you can't customize OS X to your liking. Which I sincerely doubt you can't.

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by rdf8585

I haven't seen the BSOD since Windows ME.

And I never expected the Mini to "outpreform" my "newish P4" ... but based on what people were telling me, I thought it would be close. I mean, people said "with Macs you can just double the clock speed" and thats how fast it would be in the Windows world. One of those people that told me that is a personal friend of mine that has used Macs for 10+ years.

Then there was this video that said a 867 MHZ G4 was faster than a 1.7 P4. http://pulsar.esm.psu.edu/Faculty/Gr..._myth_320f.mov

I know that video is somewhat old, but it significantly cooled down my fears that "why would I buy a 1.33 system when I bought a 1.4 P4 system... in 2001?"

Those videos were overblown. The G5 was quite a nice chip, and did decently against Intel's offerings. The G4, with its tiny bus, did not.

edit: oh my lord... fixed apostrophe error

[TheoCryst]

I'd say that earlier G3 and G4 chips outperformed older PII chips at similar clockspeeds (~300 MHz era), but Intel got a leg-up as time went on.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by rdf8585

I remember the speculation when I bought my Mini that iBooks would be first to go Intel - and at $799 to boot. That would have been wonderful. Guess they weren't THAT concerned about laptop performance as the iBooks were among the last to go Intel.

Um, it was perfectly obvious to anyone watching that the Powerbooks - the pro line - were much more desperately in need of updating. The iBooks were (and still are) perfectly acceptable for casual home use.

It was also perfectly obvious that there'd be great demand for the new Intel chips (seeing as Apple isn't the only vendor using them), and that demand for a well-priced Intel-based iBook replacement would probably well outstrip even Intel's capacity to deliver.

C'mon, man.

[rdf8585]

Originally Posted by analogika

Um, it was perfectly obvious to anyone watching that the Powerbooks - the pro line - were much more desperately in need of updating.

Sorry, but I wasn't "watching" the pro line.... I imagine if I was a veteran Mac user, like you, I might be.

[spice003]

Originally Posted by Grrr

Have fun with your BSOD's and Viruses.
Bye

you are stupid, since the SP2 came out i never had any viruses or any othe kind of ****, just don't look at porn and get all of the updates and you will be fine. i use OSX more often now since i made my startup disk OSX.

my point is quit saying have fun with al of the viruses. i bet you switched to OSX so you can look at porn and not get adware. haha

[wubrew]

Guys stop flaggelating yourself! G3 & G4 chip were great when they first came out. They are still great with OSX. I am still using my PB 400 G3 Bronze and I do not have any described problems albeit a little slower than the intel MBP. My DP 800 G4 can still do everything 2G+ Dull computer @ work with Window NT can. Want to watch news? GET A GOOD LCD TV & CABLE!!!! Other sources do fine even on my PB G3 using QT or WM. Yes especially well from Porn sites. If you buy a basic system like the mini without a good v-card, L cach etc etc and expect performance like a desk top you must be out of your mind. Mini was meant to be" A GLORIFIED HD (COMPUTER W/O A SCREEN) WITH OSX" for portability. They aren't meant to be for CPU intensive work. Next time buy a real Mac computer, and always go for the highest end, you will never never never say Window is better again. With a high end Mac you can upgrade for years to come . You get what you pay for. Live and learn.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by rdf8585

Sorry, but I wasn't "watching" the pro line.... I imagine if I was a veteran Mac user, like you, I might be.

Or perhaps if you had been in the market for a machine to hold up to your THREE GIGAHERTZ Windows box?

I mean, seriously: You bought a cheap (not as cheap as home-built, but still cheap) entry-level box as a test-balloon.

Kudos for that - for giving the Mac a chance. Seriously.

But did you seriously expect the processor to stand up to what was the absolute high-end on the Intel platform at the time? (Okay, sue me, maybe the fastest box available then was 3.2 GHz...)

Incidentally, as for speed:
http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/95175/ap...in-the-uk.html

I am a little bit curious, though, as to your motivation for posting this thread: Is it a "nyah-nyah" thing, just a vent, or are you looking for good arguments for staying on the Mac platform?

If the latter, then the structural, conceptual, and practical advantages of the Mac OS over Windows should have become readily apparent over the course of the past year. If you really want to ditch that, go ahead, but don't bother telling us about it.

The obvious path right now would seem to be an Intel Mac, which gives you the option of running Windows - ideally via Parallels, for the two or three things you list which just don't work that well on the Mac, and to continue to fire off e-mails to the ****ing morons who still insist on programming broken web content.

You will find that the Core Duo and Core 2 Duo machines scream, and will easily out-pace your Windows computer at a number of tasks.

[- - e r i k - -]

I'd say that he is looking for support in his decision. Strange that he chose to post it on a Mac board though.

Of course, he could just be looking for reasons to stay with the mac too.

[©öñFü$íóÑ]

When buying a computer, it really helps to know what the current System Requirements are for all the software you see around you in a local computer store like CompUSA, Circuit City, or BestBuy (or wherever else you buy your computer).

Like if the majority of boxed retail games say they require at least 1.5GHz, then don't settle for anything less than 3.5 GHz. Or if iTunes requires at least a G5, then get one of those faster INTEL Macs (or equivelant PCs, if that's your pref.).

My point is, whatever the current standards are, you'd be WAAAAAY better off buying your computer to exceed those 'current' standards by as much as you can afford. Sure this is common sense, but some other people either just don't get it or just have never owned a computer before in their life.

I've had my 800MHz PC ever since 2000..... that's 6 years ago (almost 7, actually) and I can -STILL- do pretty much anything a G5 or Intel Mac owner... or even a P4 or AMD64 owner can do -TODAY-, albeit a tad slower..... but still tolerable. But you see, that's still good (i.m.h.o), considering I've managed to -SQUEEZE- out as much productivity and fun out of my initial investment for as long as i have.

I can't say much about my 6100, as it was also an entry-level Mac. It was slower than frozen molasses and even with the G3 upgrade card it -hardly- does a decent job at rendering simple, modern web pages. So why do i keep it still? IT'S THE FIRST POWERMAC... *duh* =')