Apple introduces new G5 Power Macs

[roostercogburn]

One word,, FAST

[The Magical Mischief Tour]

Techno-gotta-get-me-one-of-them-puppies-ping

[mhking]

Power Mac G5: $1999 - $2999.

[RedBloodedAmerican]

For graphic or video editing, they're nice.

[RogueIsland]

The nightmare Macs I used were old, like 1998 or so.

Oh yeah. Those were the days. When the Mac became less stable than my Win 95 box (which is REALLY saying something), I wrote them off. Guess they had to go *NIX to finally get the bugs out.

[js1138]

The nightmare Macs I used were old, like 1998 or so. Just like the nightmare Windows 98 machines. I had a Mac in 98 that crashed every single time I scanned in Photoshop. I'm sure it was eventually fixed -- but then so was Windows. I maintain five Windows 2000 machines for friends and family, and ten XP machines at work. None ever crash, except for hardware failures, but they are on 24/7/52.

[tortoise]

Mac is expensive as usual......and not worth the money since they crash every other day in my experience

Expensive, yes. Crash? Hell, no. Not since the original 10.0 version of the operating system. It is pretty much bulletproof like its BSD underpinnings would suggest.

[mass55th]

"I run OS X and no bull----, my iMac hasn't crashed since I bought it in late February."

My son's used OSX since it first came out and his hasn't crashed either.

[Nexus]

The older Mac OS's (mid to late 90's) really were a nightmare. Almost as bad as Window 95/98! (almost)

[DPB101]

The nightmare Macs I used were old, like 1998 or so.

Sounds like OS8. Had a deadly bug.Use the CD and the hard drive could not be located on start-up. I put the patch in 6 months after getting mine and haven't had a crash in over 4 years.

[tortoise]

What will run on the 64 bit processor? what I have read frm Apple writers is it's not worth it.

I, for one, have been desperately waiting for a scalable 64-bit platform to hit the market that didn't cost a fortune. There are plenty of applications that can use it, though most casual business apps don't need it.

Right now I have one choice: Linux/BSD on AMD Opteron. Soon, I will have a second choice: BSD on IBM PPC970 (aka OSX). This is a good thing. Since I already have a dual proc G4-533, this latter is an attractive option. Apple's OSX puts a very tight front-end on the positively golden FreeBSD backend. Given BSD or Linux, I would prefer BSD anyway for the OS.

[Sir_Ed]

"Mac is expensive as usual......and not worth the money since they crash every other day in my experience"

I run OSX, and I get recoverable crashes maybe two times a day, and kernel panics maybe once a week.

Of course, I really push my G4, running Photoshop, Flash, Dreamweaver, InDesign, Illustrator, BBEdit and having 30-40 windows open at the same time in Safari...

I'm gonna try to get one of these gorgeous machines when it comes out!!

Ed

[william clark]

I'm still running OS 9.something. When OSX was first touted, I recall that it wasn't described as being backward compatible. Since I can't afford to upgrade all my software, I've avoided transitioning to it. What's the story? Was my information correct? If so, has the situation changed so that I can now upgrade to OSX and still run older versions of things like Photoshop and Quark?

[gonewt]

When was the last time you used a Mac... 1989?

[mgstarr]

It's amazing how you can't have a Mac thread on here without the various naysayers popping in to have their two cents worth. Of all places, you'd think people on this board would support the capitalist system where we have competition.
Do you honestly think Gates & Co. would have improved Windows as often as they have without Jobs & Co. constantly pushing the envelope?

More power to the folks in Cupertino.

[TheBattman]

Your experience is obviously not recent - although quite honestly in MY experience, Every version of Windows I have every used has been more problem prone than the concurrent MacOS version at the time. The addition of the fact that Mac troubleshooting has traditionally been far simpler ----

Now, I will admit that troubleshooting under OS X is a bit more of a challenge - I have had to do so little, I haven't had much down time. Crashes under OS X are 99.5% caused by poor programming in 3rd party software. the other .5% comes from such things as a bad stick of RAM (#1 hardware problem with the last few generations of PowerMacintosh computers - most obvious since OSX which is a lot less tolerant of out-of-spec RAM).

[Smedley]

I run OS X and no bull----, my iMac hasn't crashed since I bought it in late February.

I've heard the latest generation of Mac OS is good -- few crashes.

Meanwhile, my PC crashes dailey.

With any luck the market will do a 180 and MicroSoft will be displaced by a more worthy OS vendor.

[rwfromkansas]

2000

[TC Rider]

One word,, NICHE

[randita]

If so, has the situation changed so that I can now upgrade to OSX and still run older versions of things like Photoshop and Quark?

You can run OS X and what's called OS 9 Classic simultaneously. You start your computer in OS X, but when you open an OS 9 compatible application, it automatically changes to OS 9. Works well for most people. But you might be able to download OS X upgrades for your software and OS X drivers for your peripherals. I did that for all my software and peripherals, so I no longer work in OS 9 at all. In fact, I wiped my hard drive recently and installed Jaguar and it's been very stable.

Go to the apple.com site and navigate to the discussion boards to read more.