[riotge@r]

Link asked me to post this picture of my Radeon 9650 card. Do you G4 tower owners know if this card will fit into your AGP slot?

[Link]

I don't see any AGP pro headers, which means it'll probably work in a g4, though it varies a TINY bit from the 9600XT.. the differences are little, and the AGP header looks like it'd fit..

PM me if you're interested in selling this

[Luca Rescigno]

Dude, why would it be any different? The Mac Radeon 9650 is identical to the Mac Radeon 9600XT (click the "Learn More" link at the Apple store and you'll see that they both have identical fill rates). The only differences are the ports they provide and the amount of VRAM, both of which can be easily changed without changing the general layout of the card.

[riotge@r]

The difference is that the 9650XT can drive a 30" display, the 9600XT can not.

[E's Lil Theorem]

Originally Posted by riotge@r

The difference is that the 9650XT can drive a 30" display, the 9600XT can not.

Also, the 9650 has 2 DVI ports (one of which can drive a single 30" cinema) while the 9600XT has 1 DVI + 1 ADC.

[NY152]

riotge@r

Congratulations on the new "top o the line" PowerMac purchase. I'm still waiting for mine to ship.

[UnixMac]

Forget the 9650... it's just a way to keep unit costs down for Apple, and retail prices from sounding scary..
I know it sound snobbish but a 9650 has no place in a dual 2.7 or 2.0 for that matter... I just think (like in home stereo) the components are only as strong (or weak) as the weakest component ... don't skimp (like Apple does) on the Graphics, get AT LEAST a 9800...

[kilmanjaro]

Originally Posted by UnixMac

Forget the 9650... it's just a way to keep unit costs down for Apple, and retail prices from sounding scary..
I know it sound snobbish but a 9650 has no place in a dual 2.7 or 2.0 for that matter... I just think (like in home stereo) the components are only as strong (or weak) as the weakest component ... don't skimp (like Apple does) on the Graphics, get AT LEAST a 9800...

If he's just doing audio/video/imaging work then what would be the point? Most macs aren't used as gaming systems and wouldn't see much, if any, improvement if upgrading to a better card.

[UnixMac]

I see your point, but the way I see it, with features like QT being dependent on GPU more and more, as well as more and more of the 2D drawing being offloaded to the GPU, you shouldn't cut your high powered Mac off at the legs with a minimal GPU (which in today's world the 9600 is).

[Lateralus]

Originally Posted by kilmanjaro

If he's just doing audio/video/imaging work then what would be the point? Most macs aren't used as gaming systems and wouldn't see much, if any, improvement if upgrading to a better card.

Why should that be an excuse for including a $100-$125 video card in a $2,000-$3,000 machine?

And have you not heard of Motion? CoreImage? These are signs of what is to come from Apple in applications and future releases of OS X. The emphasis on graphics capabilities is being increased while the hardware offerings are not.

[Tyre MacAdmin]

Regular agp cards work in agp pro slots on the x86 side of things... I would imagine it's possible.

[kilmanjaro]

Originally Posted by Lateralus

Why should that be an excuse for including a $100-$125 video card in a $2,000-$3,000 machine?

And have you not heard of Motion? CoreImage? These are signs of what is to come from Apple in applications and future releases of OS X. The emphasis on graphics capabilities is being increased while the hardware offerings are not.

Of course, and that is why Apple offers a 6800 as a BTO option. Granted, there should be other options, but my point was that people are recommending spending that extra $100 for a card that may never get used.

[anamexis]

Originally Posted by Lateralus

Why should that be an excuse for including a $100-$125 video card in a $2,000-$3,000 machine?

And have you not heard of Motion? CoreImage? These are signs of what is to come from Apple in applications and future releases of OS X. The emphasis on graphics capabilities is being increased while the hardware offerings are not.

The increase of hardware offerings are being offered, however not required. I don't see what problem you can have with this. I am a student. I wanted a machine that would last me a good long time, would run things like Photoshop and Flash reasonably fast for work, Final Cut Express for the occasional movie I make. I like the expandability and value of the PowerMac.

However, I simply do not have the money to pay extra for a better video card.
And I do not need one. Every card Apple currently offers fully supports CoreImage; Motion is in a completely different league, being high-end professional video production. If you have the money to buy Motion, you have the money to upgrade your video card.

In summary, I need/like the PowerMac G5 but really don't need anything fancy in the graphics department and would appreciate not paying for something I do not need. And Apple allows me this option. Should I go into the film field in a couple years as I am considering, I'll just get a better card.

[MORT A POTTY]

well, so will this work in a PowerMac G4 or not? it looks like it might, but who knows.

but yeah, that's a crap card for a three thousand dollar machine. Apple should be ashamed of themselves. they should come with at least a Radeon 9800 XT. AT LEAST!

[rm199]

I picked up a dual 2ghz at the Apple store last night and it has the stock 9600 - didn't feel the need to upgrade especially considering the R520 is due in June (so perhaps July or August for us). They say it will be circa 2x the x850 performance. Interestingly the X850XT is mentioned in the powermac manual as an optional card (alongside the 9650 and 6800Ultra).

[Lateralus]

Originally Posted by anamexis

The increase of hardware offerings are being offered...

I'm sorry, I must be missing them. Because my eyes see the current machines offering essentially the same GPU on the high-end as the last revision of Power Macs did, which essentially offered the same GPU on the high-end as the first revision G5s announced nearly two years ago.


Radeon 9600 -> Radeon 9600 XT -> Radeon 9650 ->

Minimal increase in GPU clock and increases in VRAM. Yeah, looks like some real progression to me. :

I am a student. I wanted a machine that would last me a good long time

And for machines to last a good long time, you need next-generation technologies like PCIe and improvements in essential hardware like... video cards.

However, I simply do not have the money to pay extra for a better video card.

...my point is that you shouldn't have to pay extra for a better video card.

Every card Apple currently offers fully supports CoreImage; Motion is in a completely different league, being high-end professional video production. If you have the money to buy Motion, you have the money to upgrade your video card.

You missed my point entirely, you lack foresight. The current GPUs are capable for today's demands. But every few months, Apple is releasing new technologies that increase the reliance on the graphics card more and more than anything else in the system.

If somebody has the money to buy Motion, they're probably paying for a Power Mac to use it, that should be enough when that involves shelling out as much money as it does.

In summary, I need/like the PowerMac G5 but really don't need anything fancy in the graphics department and would appreciate not paying for something I do not need. And Apple allows me this option. Should I go into the film field in a couple years as I am considering, I'll just get a better card.

I'm not even sure how to respond to that. You appreciate not having the type of hardware included that should be included?

You're speaking for yourself on that one there buddy.

[riotge@r]

Originally Posted by Lateralus

And for machines to last a good long time, you need next-generation technologies like PCIe and improvements in essential hardware like... video cards.

You missed my point entirely, you lack foresight. The current GPUs are capable for today's demands. But every few months, Apple is releasing new technologies that increase the reliance on the graphics card more and more than anything else in the system.

If you're expecting your machine to last a long time, having PCIe isn't going to help you since you won't see gain for another couple of years. You will be better off spending the $500 for a new PCIe card in 2.5 years on a new PowerMac.

What is Apple releasing every couple of months that increase the reliance on graphic cards? Last time I checked Apple goes 1.5 years between OS updates.

[powertrippin]

That card will be fine for most applications. All you people bitching about the card, shut the hell up. It's upgradeable, it'll get a good price on ebay, and it's not a BOTTOM OF THE LINE card like what's been stuck in the iMac lineup for quiet sometime. The 9600XT and the 9650 are both pretty decent cards. Are they cutting edge? No. Will the run the OS and most applications nicely? Yes. Are they the best card out there? No.

Jesus christ the whining will never stop.

[UnixMac]

The fact that they are upgradable is the ultimate point... and you're right no need to bitch too much on that. But it's a bit sad that the flagship Mac comes with the same card as a $1400 Dell.. (or roughly the same).. It's an underlying message that Apple is sending to the graphics (productivity, as well as game) community that says... "if you want powerful graphics, get a pc"

I personally find it lame.... I'd rather have a flagship come with a flagship card and if you don't want it you can "buy down" to a Honda. (this is a purely marketing, and not tech related argument).

[powertrippin]

WRong. Apple is saying if you want a better graphics card, UPGRADE IT WHEN YOU BUY THE FREAKIN COMPUTER. The "BASE" price of the G5 is 'blah'. That is for a BASE g5. If you want bluetooth, add that. If you want a good graphics card? Add that. If you want a bigger HD? Add that.

If you're talking about apple's insanely inflated prices, there's absolutely NOTHING new about them. Hence why I buy used, and why I pirate their O/S's.

[UnixMac]

Originally Posted by powertrippin

WRong. Apple is saying if you want a better graphics card, UPGRADE IT WHEN YOU BUY THE FREAKIN COMPUTER. The "BASE" price of the G5 is 'blah'. That is for a BASE g5. If you want bluetooth, add that. If you want a good graphics card? Add that. If you want a bigger HD? Add that.

If you're talking about apple's insanely inflated prices, there's absolutely NOTHING new about them. Hence why I buy used, and why I pirate their O/S's.

The prices aren't inflated, if anything they're very good considering the price of a similar (power) PC.. but to provide a standard (basic, what ever you want to call it) graphics card that is disproportionately underpowered compared to the rest of system send a certain massage..

You are probably very young, and I don't fault you for tour abrasive attitude, as when I was a teen I was the same way.. but I will counter my point simply by saying this... you're missing my point.

[anamexis]

Originally Posted by Lateralus

I'm sorry, I must be missing them. Because my eyes see the current machines offering essentially the same GPU on the high-end as the last revision of Power Macs did, which essentially offered the same GPU on the high-end as the first revision G5s announced nearly two years ago.


Radeon 9600 -> Radeon 9600 XT -> Radeon 9650 ->

OK, firstly, I'm not attacking you.
You do not mention the 6800, which is available as BTO, as well as the Radeon 9800, still being sold in the Apple store.

And for machines to last a good long time, you need next-generation technologies like PCIe and improvements in essential hardware like... video cards.

Cards aren't going to stop being offered in AGP any time soon. My point is that should I end up needing next-generation technologoies, I will upgrade as my budget allows. But I don't need them now.

...my point is that you shouldn't have to pay extra for a better video card.

How exactly do you plan to get a better video card without paying extra for it? A better video card will result in a higher base price of the machine, simple as that.
I really do not see why you are so against options.
What exactly is wrong with leaving it to the buyer whether they will need a better video card and have the money to buy one? If you want a better video card, then buy one. If you do not need a better video card, than do not buy one.

You missed my point entirely, you lack foresight. The current GPUs are capable for today's demands. But every few months, Apple is releasing new technologies that increase the reliance on the graphics card more and more than anything else in the system.

My point is, if it works now, it will continue working. Nothing is going to break. If Apple adds new graphic intensive technologies in OS 10.5, am I required to upgrade them and thus my video card?
No. Once again, the choice is left to me, the consumer, whether I want to upgrade my video card and/or to new graphics-intensive technologies by Apple. The choice is also left to me whether I want to spend money now to future-proof my machine or wait until later when I have the money.

If somebody has the money to buy Motion, they're probably paying for a Power Mac to use it, that should be enough when that involves shelling out as much money as it does.

So you're saying that even the low-end Power Mac should be completely equipped with tools for high-end, professional work? By that reasoning, the majority of users will be paying for something they will never use. Whereas now, people (like me) are not, and people who need these advanced technologies pay to upgrade them.

I'm not even sure how to respond to that. You appreciate not having the type of hardware included that should be included?

I appreciate not paying for the type of hardware that I will not use. I have already explained why I don't think that they should be included on all models.

You're speaking for yourself on that one there buddy.

Several people above seem to agree with me.

[exca1ibur]

Lateralus point is that the G5 is labeled as a PowerMac. A high-end system with a standard video card. If you are labeling your system as high-end, but a high-end card in it, especially for the price it is selling for. It shouldn't be an option for the high-end, if you are selling a high-end system. I agree with him totally.

As for PCIe again the Powermac is labeled as high-end. What is going to happen is the same issue we had with the PC camp when they moved to AGP and we were still PCI. The problem wasn't the speed it was the fact that ATi was building mostly AGP cards and they had to make yesterdays technology (PCI) cards for the low-end systems and the Mac. Also he was talking about Motion which is available now and eats VRAM and GPU bandwidth in droves so PCIe might help for that. People buying PowerMac (High-end) have to add onto a top of the line machine for that. Basically what he is saying.... don't advertise as a high-end machine if you have to add high-end parts to it. A high-end system with a mid range card on a old technology bus isn't high-end anymore, thats all he's saying. For $3000 you shouldn't have to add much of anything other than more HD space and RAM. Honestly for the high-end it should have 1-gig or RAM standard, but thats another story. $82 for a gig of RAM isn't as bad as $500 for a high-end card that SHOULD be included in a high-end system.

[anamexis]

Originally Posted by exca1ibur

Lateralus point is that the G5 is labelled as a PowerMac. A highend system with a standard video card. If you are labeling your system as highend, but a highend card in it, especially for the price it is selling for. It shouldn't be an option for the highend, if you are selling a highend system. I agree with him totally.

As for PCIe again the Powermac is labelled as highend. What is going to happen is the same issue we had with the PC camp when they moved to AGP and we were still PCI. The problem wasn't the speed it was the fact that ATi was building mostly AGP cards and they had to make yesterdays technology (PCI) cards for the lowend systems and the Mac. Also he was talking about Motion which is available now and eats VRAM and GPU bandwidth in droves so PCIe might help for that. People buying PowerMac (Highend) have to add onto a top of the line machine for that. Basically what he is saying.... dont advertise as a highend machine if you have to add highend parts to it. A highend system with a mid range card on a old technology bus isn't highend anymore, thats all he's saying. For $3000 you shouldn't have to add much of anything other than more HD space and RAM. Honestly for the highend it should have 1gig or RAM standard, but thats another story. $82 for a gig of RAM isn't as bad as $500 for a highend card that SHOULD be included in a highend system.

OK, I see your guys' point. I agree that PCIe is past due for PowerMacs, and I see your point that a high-end Mac should come with a high-end card. However, as a poor student, I would appreciate that Apple still includes a cheaper video card as an option for the sake of people like me.

[Luca Rescigno]

Allow me to make a point here regarding this statement:

Originally Posted by anamexis

How exactly do you plan to get a better video card without paying extra for it? A better video card will result in a higher base price of the machine, simple as that.

You are mistaken. In a way, Apple is charging more for PowerMacs with each revision. In mid-2003, when the PowerMac G5s were introduced, the high end machine used a Radeon 9600 Pro video card, a 160 GB hard drive, a 4x DVD burner, and 512 MB of RAM. Now, they use a Radeon 9650 (nearly the same), a 250 GB hard drive, a 16x DVD burner, and the same 512 MB of RAM. Let's compare prices:

Radeon 9600 Pro ca. June 2003: $165
Radeon 9600 XT 256 MB today: $112

160 GB hard drive ca. October 2003: $137
250 GB hard drive today: $124

4x DVD burner ca. April 2003: $169
16x DVD burner today: $50

2x256 MB RAM ca. 2003 (Ramseeker): ~$90
2x256 MB RAM today (Ramseeker): $40

Total reduction in value since original models: $53 + $13 + $119 + $50 = $235

So Apple is paying roughly $200 less for those four components now than they were paying when the PowerMacs were released in 2003. What they should be doing is including similarly priced components with each revision, or dropping the price to reflect the cheapening of this stuff. But what has happened is that the 2003 PowerMacs really did include a decent, midrange video card for the time, as well as other good components. They didn't use high end components, but they were a solid midrange. Now at least some of the components used are definitely low end, but you seem to think you're paying less because you aren't being forced to buy more expensive components. That's wrong.

If the PowerMacs had kept using components that cost approximately the same as the ones they used in 2003, the high end model would have the same hard drive, some kind of special optical drive that's better than what is available today (perhaps a lightscribe? this one is difficult), a Radeon 9800 Pro, and 1 GB of RAM.

[UnixMac]

Luca, VERY good points, all... I think you've sealed this argument.

[riotge@r]

I agree that at bare minimum the high end machine should come with at least a gig of RAM and 9800XT card. Apple has never been on par with the rest of the industry though.

[Luca Rescigno]

Thank you. That post took friggin' forever to do, too. It took a good 20 minutes to find how much a 160 GB hard drive cost in 2003. Obviously there will be a big margin of error considering I got all the data from different sources, which may not report prices the same way consistently... and I had to settle for anything published anytime in 2003. Still, I think it's clear Apple is trying to cut costs (or at least make up for expensive stuff like the LCS on the 2.5/2.7 GHz PowerMacs) without reducing prices.

Look at the DVD burner in particular. When the PowerMacs were launched you could save $200 by downgrading to a Combo drive. Now you only save $100. For someone who doesn't want/need a DVD burner, that's effectively a $100 price hike. It would be nice if there were at least a $200 price drop by now.

[Link]

Luca, those are some darn good points.. thanks for enlightening us

[U n i o n 0015]

So basically, Apple is lagging behind with the Power Macs...yep, I am pretty sure everyone except those who just bought a new Power Mac realize that.

I won't be buying a Power Mac until I see some serious hardware improvements. This two year old technology is a joke.

[riotge@r]

Originally Posted by U n i o n 0015

So basically, Apple is lagging behind with the Power Macs...yep, I am pretty sure everyone except those who just bought a new Power Mac realize that.

I won't be buying a Power Mac until I see some serious hardware improvements. This two year old technology is a joke.

Your comment is funny. The biggest problem people have on this board is the lack of PCIe, which is not usable. I'd rather have a faster machine right now than sit on a slow arse computer waiting for the mythical uber PowerMac. Once that machine does come out my current machine will go up on eBay anyways. The cycle will continue on this board as it does any time a Apple product is released.

[U n i o n 0015]

Originally Posted by riotge@r

Your comment is funny. The biggest problem people have on this board is the lack of PCIe, which is not usable. I'd rather have a faster machine right now than sit on a slow arse computer waiting for the mythical uber PowerMac. Once that machine does come out my current machine will go up on eBay anyways. The cycle will continue on this board as it does any time a Apple product is released.

My problem is that for a measly 200Mhz speed increase per processor, they're still charging 3 grand. You really have to love OS X (and I do) to pay that much when you can a dual-core AMD or Intel system in a few months that'll can go through the motions just as well (or better) than these recently updated Power Macs.

The last PowerBook update was lame, offering up only moderate speed increases, and I bought one of those. People in the PB forum bitched about that update the same way I am bitching about this G5 update and they had a point...it's the same technology we've had for a few years, with only a modest bump. But at least with the PB update, they cut prices. I consider this Power Mac update lame because it's only a marginal update but with the same price as before.

I'm not knocking your purchase; I'm knocking Apple for sitting on their asses with two year old technology. The G5 is frankly, going no where, while Intel and AMD will have the next generation of processors on the market in the next couple of months.

Heck, for better reasons, read Luca's post. He's right. Apple is selling old technology for a premium price. Any professional would be PO'ed at Apple right now. We want power, we want top-of-the-line performance if we are going to pay top dollar price.

[riotge@r]

The interesting thing is that the Intel/AMD diehards have been complaining about those companies stagnant products as well. I am not concerned about dual core at the moment since there isn't much that takes advantage of it. Even if I were to upgrade to dual core processors in my gaming PC, none of my games would run any faster. In this case the technology will be there, but the bulk of the software will not. One could say that about 64-bit CPUs, but they (AMD) at least showed profound gains over what Intel was providing. If I were to buy a dual core system this summer for my PC I would need to upgrade AGAIN once the dual core optimized games were released. It doesn't always pay to be an early adopter.

In the end it is better for Apple to release incremental updates rather than nothing at all. Sure it makes the previous "king of the hill" owners made, but that's life.

[powertrippin]

Originally Posted by UnixMac

The prices aren't inflated, if anything they're very good considering the price of a similar (power) PC.. but to provide a standard (basic, what ever you want to call it) graphics card that is disproportionately underpowered compared to the rest of system send a certain massage..

WRong. I can build a $600 PC that will smoke the **** out of a g5 in almost every performance category and spec. Doubt me? I've proved it before in other threads.

You are probably very young, and I don't fault you for tour abrasive attitude,

Blow me. I'm 24.

[riotge@r]

Originally Posted by powertrippin

WRong. I can build a $600 PC that will smoke the **** out of a g5 in almost every performance category and spec. Doubt me? I've proved it before in other threads.



Blow me. I'm 24.

What is the point of this post? It is easy to build a $600 PC that will "smoke" a $2000 Dell if you pick and choose your categories and only care for a stripped down system.

[powertrippin]

The point is that apple's prices are INSANE. In comparison to apple $3000 g5, I could build a $600-700 PC that will put the G5's face against a curb and stomp on the back of it's head. And my point was, apple's prices have always been insane and are very inflated. Someone said they weren't, and claimed they were fair prices...********.

[rm199]

if you can supply said PC running Tiger then I'll gladly place an order with you right now

[riotge@r]

Originally Posted by powertrippin

The point is that apple's prices are INSANE. In comparison to apple $3000 g5, I could build a $600-700 PC that will put the G5's face against a curb and stomp on the back of it's head. And my point was, apple's prices have always been insane and are very inflated. Someone said they weren't, and claimed they were fair prices...********.

Your point is a bit skewed since you are BUILDING a computer - meaning crap parts and ugly case. $600 will not buy you a comparable machine from Alienware or Voodoo. Regardless, Apple products are overpriced relative to what you're getting... BUT, I buy for the OS and design.

A comparably configured computer from Alienware with dual core processors and ATI X800 XT will run you $2,648.00. Of course the PowerMac doesn't have PCIe and DDR2.

[powertrippin]

Originally Posted by rm199

if you can supply said PC running Tiger then I'll gladly place an order with you right now

The very reason I don't own a PC. However, my point still stands. A sub $1000 PC can completely annihilate the best 3 thousand dollar mac. HENCE, apple's prices are inflated and slightly insane, the reason why I never buy 'new' apple products.

[davecom]

When i got my powermac g5 1.8 1.5 years ago, I thought the 9600 was a bit low, and I had to pay $50 to upgrade from the 5200, so I can't imagine how buyers fee today!

[Lateralus]

Shut up Ca$h. You couldn't even buy ONE of the two Opterons required to compete with the Dual 2.7GHz G5 and it's dual-socket motherboard for the price estimate you're coughing out.

And start factoring the price of Windows into your 'guesstimates'. Contrary to popular belief, most people do not pirate Windows.

[Cadaver]

Originally Posted by powertrippin

The very reason I don't own a PC. However, my point still stands. A sub $1000 PC can completely annihilate the best 3 thousand dollar mac. HENCE, apple's prices are inflated and slightly insane, the reason why I never buy 'new' apple products.

On games (written and optimized for the x86 architecture), yes.
On MS Office "benchmarks," yes (big surprise there).
On applications like Matlab, After Effects, Logic, Photoshop and many other cross-platform apps, no.

However, while a PC costing 1/3 the price of a PowerMac G5 might best it in many benchmarks, I would still get my work done faster on the Mac. And at the end of the day, that's all that matters. Thus, no matter what benchmarks you show me, my Mac will always be faster. My computer usually waits for me anyway; very rarely is it the other way around.

My favorite PC benchmark is the multitasking one where the "user" does several office-type functions while a virus scanner runs in the background. Great... get a fast computer to run virus scan all day

[trip]

Originally Posted by powertrippin

The very reason I don't own a PC. However, my point still stands. A sub $1000 PC can completely annihilate the best 3 thousand dollar mac. HENCE, apple's prices are inflated and slightly insane, the reason why I never buy 'new' apple products.

I sooo agree with you ! Lovin a Mac while they rape me is shameful, but still the case !

[Lateralus]

Why are you bitching? You're using a 6 year old Mac and running an OS X release that is four years old. You're raping yourself.

[Todd Madson]

Indeed. 10.15 is so slow and old that he he upgraded to tiger he'd get whiplash.

[riotge@r]

Originally Posted by Lateralus

Why are you bitching? You're using a 6 year old Mac and running an OS X release that is four years old. You're raping yourself.

LOL!! Post of the day.

[trip]

Originally Posted by Lateralus

Why are you bitching? You're using a 6 year old Mac and running an OS X release that is four years old. You're raping yourself.

Well you're right. I've been saving for 3 years and finally have the money to buy a new machine. Gonna see what the new iMac is going to offer. Why am I bitching ? Cause money doesn't grow on trees for me. Given that I'm about to lay down $3G - I think I'm allowed.

[doublep]

Some of the insight here has been interesting...

I am in the market for a video card to be used in a Dual 2.3 Ghz system.

I do not have time to do gaming, but I am looking for excellent 2D performance, DVD playback, Photoshop performance, etc...

Also, noise (or the lack of) is high on my priority list. (I saw the X800XT in a store and it was very noisy)

Which card (retail) would suit these requirements best?

Thanks.

[Agent69]

Originally Posted by trip

Well you're right. I've been saving for 3 years and finally have the money to buy a new machine. Gonna see what the new iMac is going to offer. Why am I bitching ? Cause money doesn't grow on trees for me. Given that I'm about to lay down $3G - I think I'm allowed.

Wow, when you do get a new machine, the difference for you will be incredible.

[rm199]

I feel blown away by the G5s as they stand right now, let alone what they will become over the next 12 months (hopefully!!)