[subego]

I still don't get the TiBook angle.

[Spheric Harlot]

You have a veteran, a workhorse, that is a part of history, and assuming that it's still working, your impulse is to trash it.

What are you not getting?

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by tightsocks 

I do wish that I had not done that. If for no other reason than if anything goes wrong with my desktop set-up I will be totally offline.

You should at least get an external hard drive and make backups via Time Machine. Otherwise, your current setup is just a disaster waiting to happen, especially if your desktop provokes your wrath one way or another

[tightsocks]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

You should at least get an external hard drive and make backups via Time Machine. Otherwise, your current setup is just a disaster waiting to happen, especially if your desktop provokes your wrath one way or another

Yes, I have backups on external HD's as well as online. If /when something goes wrong with my MIni or even the monitor or keyboard I will be in the dark ages with no way to manage the myriad things that require a computer. Won't even be able to get online to research fixes or order new stuff.

So, getting back to the original concepts of this thread - I guess in oder to function in the modern world we actually need multiple modern and up to date computers. I simply can't handle the time, complexity and cost that is apparently required to manage this!

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by tightsocks 

So, getting back to the original concepts of this thread - I guess in oder to function in the modern world we actually need multiple modern and up to date computers. I simply can't handle the time, complexity and cost that is apparently required to manage this!

I don't know why you should need multiple: before I got my iPhone last year, I did great with just one computer for 25 years. The iPhone is a great, great convenience for me, but it's not a necessity. And I don't think it needs to be up to date, I guess, I could have continued to use my previous machine from 2006 if I hadn't poured apple juice over the keyboard

[tightsocks]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

I don't know why you should need multiple

For when one of them invariable fails.

And I don't think it needs to be up to date, I guess, I could have continued to use my previous machine from 2006 if I hadn't poured apple juice over the keyboard

Well, with Macs at least there seems to be the problem of obsolescence and compatibility.
The PowerBook was a problem because it meant that I needed to make sure that there was software that was able to handle data that was created on the up to date Intel machine. This meant that I had to choose software for the Intel that was also still available for 10.5 and PPC. The password manager that I was using was recently updated and in the process started using a new format - the new version is only available for 10.6/Intel. So, was forced to choose between using an old version (bug fixes were only available for the new version) or having the latest fixes etc.

Can 2006 Mac run Mountain Lion? I don't know. I guess if it is a Core solo then it can't. That likely means that once Apple releases 10.9 that Lion will stop receiving security updates. It also looks like the current version of Flash requires a C2D. I just can't traverse this minefield of compatibility any more...

It looks like I could spend north if $300 to get a Core solo MacBook as a secondary machine that will likely be totally unsupported within the next 9 months. Or I guess I could switch to Windows where there are at least very low cost options that can run up to date software.
I just can't traverse this minefield of compatibility any more...

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by tightsocks 

For when one of them invariable fails.

Do you also own a spare care in case you need to take your »primary« car to the shop?

Originally Posted by tightsocks 

Well, with Macs at least there seems to be the problem of obsolescence and compatibility.
The PowerBook was a problem because it meant that I needed to make sure that there was software that was able to handle data that was created on the up to date Intel machine.

The PowerBook G4 was introduced in January 2001 and discontinued in September 2003, nine-and-a-half years ago. At least two upgrade cycles have passed, and your TiBook was equivalent to a ~20+-year old car. That means you have to manage your expectations if you plan to use it until it breaks. And if it breaks, I think that's quite legitimate after such a long time, don't blame your machine or Apple, you got plenty of use out of it.

Originally Posted by tightsocks 

This meant that I had to choose software for the Intel that was also still available for 10.5 and PPC. The password manager that I was using was recently updated and in the process started using a new format - the new version is only available for 10.6/Intel. So, was forced to choose between using an old version (bug fixes were only available for the new version) or having the latest fixes etc.

That's the sort of compromise you have to accept if you want to continue to use such an old machine. If the old version of the password manager works for you, then you're not forced to upgrade, you want to upgrade to newer versions of the software.

Originally Posted by tightsocks 

Can 2006 Mac run Mountain Lion? I don't know. I guess if it is a Core solo then it can't.

No, but you can run at least 10.6 on it which is good enough. In fact, some people prefer it to the Lions.

Originally Posted by tightsocks 

It looks like I could spend north if $300 to get a Core solo MacBook as a secondary machine that will likely be totally unsupported within the next 9 months. Or I guess I could switch to Windows where there are at least very low cost options that can run up to date software.
I just can't traverse this minefield of compatibility any more...

You picked the wrong time to switch to Windows: Windows 8 is a break in compatibility and usability -- unless, of course, you want to use the old version of Windows for the time being (that's legitimate, of course, but inherently has the same problems as running old versions of OS X). Besides, old PCs also get flaky (wonky power supplies, failing hard drives, bad RAM), so switching to a PC will not help you much in that regard.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

You have a veteran, a workhorse, that is a part of history, and assuming that it's still working, your impulse is to trash it.

What are you not getting?

I'm pretty sure I've frustrated you, which wasn't really my point.

My impulse wasn't to trash anything except your SE, which I felt I made pretty clear I was joking about.

I stand by my claim that using a TiBook for actual computing in 2013 is an utter waste of your valuable time when AT&T will give you a phone which is faster.

I can answer the question about what I'm not getting, but we should uncross these wires first. Again, I'm not saying anyone should trash anything, so since you're telling me that's my impulse, I'm almost positive we've got crossed wires.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by subego 

I stand by my claim that using a TiBook for actual computing in 2013 is an utter waste of your valuable time when AT&T will give you a phone which is faster.

Both don't have the same screen estate and have different usage models. I know people for whom a TiBook would probably be fast enough, or at the very least, they wouldn't care that they can have a machine that is easily 10x faster.* To me, the most substantial reason for replacing a TiBook is that it's a failure waiting to happen.

* My father had a G4-based Mac mini that was replaced with an identically looking Core Duo Mac mini (my father's words in the store »I want the same computer.«). He didn't feel a difference. Ditto after replacing the hard drive with an SSD. Some people are really oblivious to this kind of thing.

[mattyb]

Originally Posted by subego 

Thank you!

I wanted the RR more than the LR, but I wanted the kind you could hose out.

What made them cool to me was seeing them in documentaries about the wilds of Africa as a kid.

This is the "2nd amendment Land Rover" :

[subego]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Both don't have the same screen estate and have different usage models. I know people for whom a TiBook would probably be fast enough, or at the very least, they wouldn't care that they can have a machine that is easily 10x faster.* To me, the most substantial reason for replacing a TiBook is that it's a failure waiting to happen.

* My father had a G4-based Mac mini that was replaced with an identically looking Core Duo Mac mini (my father's words in the store »I want the same computer.«). He didn't feel a difference. Ditto after replacing the hard drive with an SSD. Some people are really oblivious to this kind of thing.

I've used an 1.67 G4 chip with 10.4. It was absolute agony. I needed to wait for the processor to catch up (beachball) at least once per minute, often more. This is using Mail and Safari, so the absolute minimum use for a computer.

That is simply unacceptable for most people, and if it is acceptable, I guess good for them they consider their time so worthless.

The comment about the phone wasn't a suggestion to replace a laptop with a phone (though I have, and it's life changing), it was commentary on how cheap computing power is. Again, there's no excuse to waste your time with 10-year-old gear unless your time is that worthless.

[subego]

Originally Posted by mattyb 

This is the "2nd amendment Land Rover" :

There's problem number one with the LR vs. the RR.

In the wilds of Africa, mother****in lion gets in the passenger seat.

Then baboons would steal all your shit.

[Phileas]

Looking at the fire power on that LR, any lion foolish enough to cadge a lift would be biltong before it had a chance to even get close.

[subego]

Those are for hunting the most dangerous game. Using it on a lion would be cheating.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by subego 

The comment about the phone wasn't a suggestion to replace a laptop with a phone (though I have, and it's life changing), it was commentary on how cheap computing power is. Again, there's no excuse to waste your time with 10-year-old gear unless your time is that worthless.

The same applies to old cars, though.

There are cars available that are far cheaper to maintain, use a fraction of the petrol, are far more roadworthy, safer, etc. than an old Landy or early Range Rover. They're simply not worth the time and the money.

Except that it's not about the time and the money.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by subego 

I'm pretty sure I've frustrated you, which wasn't really my point.

My impulse wasn't to trash anything except your SE, which I felt I made pretty clear I was joking about.

I stand by my claim that using a TiBook for actual computing in 2013 is an utter waste of your valuable time when AT&T will give you a phone which is faster.

Well, sure.

But that's completely beside the point.

My point is that this old tech is worth saving.

[subego]

Well, yeah.

I didn't smash my (less auspicious) MBP, I gave it to someone who has OS9 legacy software.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

The same applies to old cars, though.

There are cars available that are far cheaper to maintain, use a fraction of the petrol, are far more roadworthy, safer, etc. than an old Landy or early Range Rover. They're simply not worth the time and the money.

Except that it's not about the time and the money.

I understand where you're going with your analogy.

Where I take issue is the driving experience and the computing experience aren't comparable.

The driving experience is affected in a trillion different ways by the quality of the equipment, and said quality isn't necessarily of great importance. Go-carts are fun to drive.

The computing experience in the context we're talking about (running 10.5) is affected by the hardware in basically one way: speed. You don't get any "this has a more springy throttle", or "this has less oversteer". It's just slower. That's it. Exactly same experience, just not as fast.

There are plenty of reasons to keep a TiBook, I'm saying the experience of using it isn't one of them, especially not the way the experience of driving an antique car is a reason for keeping it.

[Spheric Harlot]

That depends upon what you happen to think is fun.

Driving an old VW microbus on the highway is a noisy, slow, nervewracking ordeal for me. For others, it's the whole point of the journey.

Firing up my old Mac SE to play a round of Shufflepuck Café or Crystal Quest pleases me.

I wouldn't want that tiBook myself, either. But I have no personal attachment to that generation of machines.

[andi*pandi]

Anyone who has a working OS9 machine they don't want, I'll take it.

ooh, crystal quest...

[Spheric Harlot]

An official port of Crystal Quest is (was?) actually out for iPhone, but it really isn't the same.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by subego 

The computing experience in the context we're talking about (running 10.5) is affected by the hardware in basically one way: speed.

I think what Spheric is getting at is that your assumption in parens is wrong. The* reason to like or love old (Apple) hardware is because it can run old versions of Mac OS, and new hardware can't. Old OSes do offer a different computing experience in many ways that aren't related to speed.

* besides the factor that everyone has already moved past, the "cool" retro body shapes, and hipster-factor of being seen with them.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

I think what Spheric is getting at is that your assumption in parens is wrong. The* reason to like or love old (Apple) hardware is because it can run old versions of Mac OS, and new hardware can't. Old OSes do offer a different computing experience in many ways that aren't related to speed.

* besides the factor that everyone has already moved past, the "cool" retro body shapes, and hipster-factor of being seen with them.

It's not so much that new hardware *can't*, but you've pretty much got what I mean.

The tiBook, running whatever was current at the time (or whatever it could handle; that's a similar question as with historic buildings or cars: which state do you restore to?), was a totally kick-ass system, and its design and experience were unlike any machine before then and since then. Not "better", for any arbitrary measure of "better" (much like a 1964 Landrover is not a "better" car by any arbitrary measurement than whatever you might pit against it today), but unique in its way.

That old Mac SE running system 6.0.7 or even System 7.1 is unlike anything else in terms of experience. Except maybe an SE/30 (which would be cool to have, but not cooler enough than the SE that I'd invest any time in finding one).

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

It's not so much that new hardware *can't*, but you've pretty much got what I mean.

The tiBook, running whatever was current at the time (or whatever it could handle; that's a similar question as with historic buildings or cars: which state do you restore to?), was a totally kick-ass system, and its design and experience were unlike any machine before then and since then. Not "better", for any arbitrary measure of "better" (much like a 1964 Landrover is not a "better" car by any arbitrary measurement than whatever you might pit against it today), but unique in its way.

That old Mac SE running system 6.0.7 or even System 7.1 is unlike anything else in terms of experience. Except maybe an SE/30 (which would be cool to have, but not cooler enough than the SE that I'd invest any time in finding one).

I realize now I don't know if new Macs can't run previous versions of OS X, only that Apple won't let you do it. How do you do it?

[Spheric Harlot]

You can run some earlier versions in virtualization with a bit of hacking (it's basically like running a hackintosh). And you can run System 6 in virtualization.

But my point wasn't about software availability. It was about the experience of the whole package as it was intended at the time.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

That depends upon what you happen to think is fun.

Driving an old VW microbus on the highway is a noisy, slow, nervewracking ordeal for me. For others, it's the whole point of the journey.

Firing up my old Mac SE to play a round of Shufflepuck Café or Crystal Quest pleases me.

I wouldn't want that tiBook myself, either. But I have no personal attachment to that generation of machines.

That's the thing, the SE makes sense (despite my intent to hunt it down). CQ on a CRT all-in-one Mac is an experience which a newer model can't give you.

10.5 on a laptop is an experience which can be duplicated exactly on newer hardware, the only difference being the newer hardware is faster. Like, way faster.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

I think what Spheric is getting at is that your assumption in parens is wrong. The* reason to like or love old (Apple) hardware is because it can run old versions of Mac OS, and new hardware can't. Old OSes do offer a different computing experience in many ways that aren't related to speed.

* besides the factor that everyone has already moved past, the "cool" retro body shapes, and hipster-factor of being seen with them.

It's only half an assumption. The TiBook in question was running 10.5, so I think it's applicable to compare it with other machines which can run 10.5. There are plenty of faster machines which can.

Even if we expand it to everything the TiBook can run, we're talking differences of a few point revisions. Is 10.6 that much a different experience from 10.5?

Compare the differences between those point revisions and the difference you have running 10.5 on a G4, and 10.6 on a 2012 quad core i7 (which works, I've tested it).

My position is the differences between two (or even three) OSX point revisions pale in significance compared to the speed differences of 10 years worth of processor design.