[chadbang]

The time has come to retire my Powerbook G3. I think since I'm steadily becoming more and more of a computer nerd I think I'll get a Power Mac this time around since it will let me "customise" my Mac with the most ease.

I'm looking at the new dual processor G5 line, but I notice that the old G5 line is also discounted at the moment. I'm just wondering, will dual processors benefit all my aps (I'm heavy into photoshop, 3d programs and video) or only select programs designed for dual processors?

Do people think the new G5 line is the way to go at the moment? Anyone have experience with these last line or two of macs? I use a G4 800mhz at work and it's pretty good, but not really THAT much of an improvement over my 233 Mhz powerbook. This will be my first new mac in six years, and I haven't been keeping up on developments at Apple (just fooling around here at Head-fi!) Is the G5 really a big step up from the G4?

Sorry, one last question. Do these latest Mac still run in the "Classic" mode. I've got a lot of OS9 aps I don't want to abandon. I read something about the newest mac "not booting" under OS0 anymore. I don't quite get the difference between booting in OS9 and the ablilty to run in the "classic" mode.

 

[chadbang]

Well, I just wasted about 5 hours at work looking at all the specs and it really seems like the Powerbook remains an ideal Mac. It the only mac (other than the Power Macs) that has both audio input and outputs and a lot of connection port options. (The toslink audio connections of the G5 sound sweeeeet, however). Since the powerbooks are still G4 based? Will they boot in OS9?

 

[3lusiv3]

None of the current Mac's boot into Mac OS 9, although you can use Mac OS 9 in classic. If you don't really have a need for a portable computer there is no need to get a laptop because you can get a better computer by spending the same amount on a desktop.

I'm very happy with my new PBG4 and the eMacs are great value as well. All of the current Apple computers are great and you can't relly go wrong if you find the right mix of specs for your computer use.

 

[chadbang]

I see you're right (more damn surfing). I guess my only option is to buy a Power Mac G4 Dual 1.25 if I want to boot into OS9. It is apparently the last model Apple offers that boots into OS9. I guess I better grab one fast, since they probably won't be around long. The reason I want to boot into OS9 is that although you can run programs in "classic" it's apparently like running programs in Virtual PC, with OS9 being run like an ap within OSX. Consequently, you'll get better performance running OS9 aps with a real OS9 environment. Makes sense. And apparently one of my major applications, Quark, won't run under classic.

 

[3lusiv3]

Quote:

Originally Posted by chadbang I see you're right (more damn surfing). I guess my only option is to buy a Power Mac G4 Dual 1.25 if I want to boot into OS9. It is apparently the last model Apple offers that boots into OS9. I guess I better grab one fast, since they probably won't be around long. The reason I want to boot into OS9 is that although you can run programs in "classic" it's apparently like running programs in Virtual PC, with OS9 being run like an ap within OSX. Consequently, you'll get better performance running OS9 aps with a real OS9 environment. Makes sense. And apparently one of my major applications, Quark, won't run under classic.

Classic is totally different to Virtual PC. In Virtual PC the Virtual PC app is simulating a PC processor but Classic doesn't need to simulate the processor because the PPC processor is already there. I find that classic is not any slower than running Mac OS 9, plus classic may even be quicker because you will probably be running a faster processor. Don't let Classic hold you back because Mac OS X is worth moving to even if you need to run a couple of apps in classic. Just make sure your apps are compatible with Classic.

 

[andrzejpw]

I'm not sure if limiting yourself to the dual G4 is the optimal solution for you. Like you said, the g4 800 is doesn't feel "that much" faster. The dual g4s will be better, but nevertheless, why limit yourself? Quark Express is now available for Max OS X, and you can use your other apps in classic mode.

 

[chadbang]

That's good news about running classic. I've been trying to find a site with a list of Classic compatible aps. No luck yet. I guess I'll go look again. Maybe I'll have to get Quark for OSX. Too bad, I like the older version of Quark (3.1) best.


WHOA You posted that about Quark while I was writing this one.

Actually, you guys are probably right about limiting myself. I plan on learning Final Cut Pro for a potential move back into the (film) industry, and I guess the G5s are really rev'ed up for video.

 

[chadbang]

Arrrrrrrrrrrrghhhhhhhh. First classic compatibility check: Adobe AfterEffect 5.5. No go!!!! This is why I hated that whole remake of the Mac operating system. I knew this was going to happen!

And I sure it's iPods, itunes, iMovie and Final Cut Pro that have created this new upswing for Apple. Not god#@! OSX.

 

[3lusiv3]

PBG3's are great laptops. You could keep the PBG3, if you can afford to, for use with Quark and as your laptop, and get a new desktop computer for newer apps. You could swap data between them via ethernet or airport.

 

[3lusiv3]

I thought After Effects 5.5 could run in Mac OS X because it's a Carbon app (meaning it can run in Mac OS 9 or X). I'll have to check on that one. I work in a TV production company and I thought the graphics guys were using AE 5.5 on Mac OS X.

edit:
http://maccentral.macworld.com/news/...=1087547314000

 

[andrzejpw]

AE 6.5 is available for OS X, but I guess that doesn't help.

 

[chadbang]

Yeah. Durn it. Well, thanks to both you guys for helping me out. I guess I have decisions to make. This isn't going to be easy.

 

[chadbang]

Quote:

Originally Posted by 3lusiv3 I thought After Effects 5.5 could run in Mac OS X because it's a Carbon app (meaning it can run in Mac OS 9 or X). I'll have to check on that one. I work in a TV production company and I thought the graphics guys were using AE 5.5 on Mac OS X. edit: http://maccentral.macworld.com/news/...=1087547314000

It'll run, 3lusiv3, but kind of flakily. From Adobe's support page:

You may encounter the following issues when running After Effects in Mac OS X Classic mode:
-- QuickTime 5.0 or 4.1 crashes when rendering QuickTime movies.
-- RAM Preview playback does not match the reported frame rate, and causes video and audio to drift out of sync.
-- The eyedropper tool can cause After Effects to crash.
-- Files don't import or a crash occurs in After Effects when you drag files from the Finder into the Project window.
-- Video Preview doesn't work and Vector Paint doesn't support graphics tablets because of limited hardware support in Classic mode.
-- The After Effects interface doesn't redraw correctly after you drag files or apply effects.
-- After Effects freezes temporarily when you drag multiple items to the trash icon at the bottom of the Project window.
-- Performance is slower than in Mac OS 9.x.

 

[3lusiv3]

Quote:

Originally Posted by chadbang It'll run, 3lusiv3, but kind of flakily. From Adobe's support page: You may encounter the following issues when running After Effects in Mac OS X Classic mode:

I'm not talking about Classic. I'm pretty sure it will run in Mac OS X native.

 

[D-EJ915]

If I remember correctly, my friend uses OS9 sometimes on his 2GHz G5, it's just installed on another hard drive and he can select which one by holding the option key or something.