# article: is your Mac fast enough?



## Randman (Aug 2, 2003)

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/2003-08-01-steinberg_x.htm

Interesting article.


----------



## phatcactus (Aug 2, 2003)

I still have no idea how things that used to install from a single floppy now spread themselves across three CDs...


----------



## GulGnu (Aug 2, 2003)

> _Originally posted by phatcactus _
> *I still have no idea how things that used to install from a single floppy now spread themselves across three CDs...   *



Software bloat isn't a bug - it's a feature, despite everyone and their mothers complaining about "lack of optimization", etc. etc. =P

"Bloating" software allows today's software companies to create software in a timely manner, despite steadily increasing complexity in software. Keep in mind that tasks such as debugging don't increase linearly, but probably rather exponentially as program size increases. Thus, if you wanted your software fully "optimized", you'd probably have to break your budget and wait longer than desired to get your hands on a new version of your favorite program.

/End defense of bloat


----------



## Arden (Aug 2, 2003)

Computers nowadays can perform certain tasks like Photoshop filters, ripping MP3's and AAC's, and rendering 3D scenes in a fraction of the time that computers of even 2 years ago can, but they still take a while to... you know what I'm going to say:

LOAD.

Starting up a computer takes 1-2 minutes.  Starting up many applications, like Photoshop, takes another 20-30 seconds.  That's up to 2.5 minutes that you've been sitting at your desk, waiting to become productive.  I think the software companies should start looking into ways to reduce this time.

When I have a fantastic job and money up the wazoo, I'm going to custom order a computer from Apple that will boot in under 10 seconds and absolutely never, ever crash, even if I have to pay a fortune, plus sell several organs, to afford it.  Who knows, maybe they'll figure out the formula and start mass marketing computers that do just that.


----------



## MisterMe (Aug 2, 2003)

> _Originally posted by GulGnu _
> *Software bloat isn't a bug - it's a feature, despite everyone and their mothers complaining about "lack of optimization", etc. etc. =P
> 
> "Bloating" software allows today's software companies to create software in a timely manner, despite steadily increasing complexity in software. Keep in mind that tasks such as debugging don't increase linearly, but probably rather exponentially as program size increases. Thus, if you wanted your software fully "optimized", you'd probably have to break your budget and wait longer than desired to get your hands on a new version of your favorite program.
> ...


I can remember when virtually every Mac application shipped on a single floppy that also had a copy of the System installed. The multiple installation CD's are due a combination of things. Software bloat is a part of it. Added features, many of dubious value, and the switch from assembly language to C++ accounts for part of the bloat. Another thing accounts for some of the bloat is the switch to the PowerPC. PPC code is naturally bigger than 680x0 code. For many applications, however, those three things will still not fill even a single CD. What fills multiple CDs are the bundled extras. My favorite graphics application used to ship on a single floppy. The switch to C++, PPC code, etc. bloated the installation up to four floppies. The application now ships on three CDs. Two of the CDs contain only cheesy fonts and clip art. I have used a few pieces of the clip art, but the fonts will not touch my hard disk. Why does the vendor include  crap that I don't want or need? My theory is that it is the notion that size matters. The vendor figures that the customer will think that two CDs are better than one, and that three CDs are better than two. The really sad part of it is that the vendor is probably right.


----------



## Randman (Aug 2, 2003)

> Starting up a computer takes 1-2 minutes.  Starting up many applications, like Photoshop, takes another 20-30 seconds.  That's up to 2.5 minutes that you've been sitting at your desk, waiting to become productive.  I think the software companies should start looking into ways to reduce this time.


 Let your computer sleep rather than shutting down and restarting. There's other reasons to, but it wakes from sleep much faster than a restart.
  And if you multi-task, you're saving time. If I'm doing something in InDesign or Quark or PhotoShop I'll usually check my e-mail or surf (love those Safari tabs) or scan the Music Store while waiting for the app to load. And that works just fine, even on a iBook (just make sure you have plenty of ram).


----------



## GulGnu (Aug 2, 2003)

> _Originally posted by MisterMe _
> * The vendor figures that the customer will think that two CDs are better than one, and that three CDs are better than two. The really sad part of it is that the vendor is probably right. *



This theory can be  expanded a bit. CD:s are dirt cheap these days, so there is really no substantial reason for software companies not to bundle software with various kinds of media, to enhance percieved value. And as long as installation isn't mandatory, why object? This also answers your question - even if you don't want that "crap", someone else might - and as the cost of including said crap is negligable, they might as well do it in order to rack up a few extra sales.


----------



## MaC hAcKeR (Aug 2, 2003)

I don't need an article, I already know my Mac isn't fast enough. It's not powerful enough either. It's all stinky and broken.


----------



## Arden (Aug 2, 2003)

Randman, I already keep my iMac on perpetually, despite my father's wishes that I shut it down to "save power."  We shut this computer (the G3) down whenever no one will be using it for some time, although this computer is much louder than my induction-cooled iMac with the hard drive spinned down.  In any case, that's how we use this computer.  I also try to keep common applications open on my iMac that don't use a lot of memory, which isn't Photoshop.

All that really isn't the point, though.


----------



## Lycander (Aug 2, 2003)

The next logical step is distributing software on DVD rather than 650-700 MB CD-ROMs. Even Linux distros are doing this now because no one wants to swap around 3 CDs with RPM packages scattered all across.

Most all Macs come with a combo drive that includes a DVD reader, unless the user ordered one with just a plain CD-ROM drive (I think it's only possible with iBooks right now).


----------



## Arden (Aug 2, 2003)

That would be a good idea if every computer had a DVD player, but unfortunately most do not, and many people would be unable to buy software.

However, the CD-ROM eventually caught on, overtaking the floppy over several years, so I'm sure eventually companies will distribute software on DVD's.  It'll just take a long time, and during the transition, some will use CD's, some will use DVD's, and some will use both.


----------



## ccuilla (Aug 3, 2003)

> _Originally posted by arden _
> *That would be a good idea if every computer had a DVD player, but unfortunately most do not*



This won't be the case for very long. Apple will push it and push it hard (as they did with the move from floppy distributions to CDs).


----------



## Lycander (Aug 3, 2003)

Well, um... gee thanks for reiterating what I said.


----------



## TommyWillB (Aug 3, 2003)

> _Originally posted by phatcactus _
> *I still have no idea how things that used to install from a single floppy now spread themselves across three CDs...   *


 I have most of my college life on 3 low density 3" floppies. That includes all of my essays AND a copy of MS Word 4.

Granted this was 1987-1991 and MS Word files  only weighed bytes and not 100's of Kb.

I have a few papers from my old Kaypro DOS machine on 5.25" floppies (actually floppy and not hard like the 3.5" floppies). But using DOS + Wordstart + dot matrix printer was a complete drag compared to those cute little Mac Plus's + laser printers they had in the computer labs.

As far as my computer being fast enough... Just the fact that my current machine can do things (digital video, internet, plotting missle tragectories, etc...) that would have required a Cray supercomputer in 1987, I have to say YES. Regarding word processing being slow, all I have to say is what the h3ll do you expect from friggin Microsoft?!?


----------



## Lycander (Aug 3, 2003)

> _Originally posted by TommyWillB _
> Regarding word processing being slow, all I have to say is what the h3ll do you expect from friggin Microsoft?!? [/B]



No I don't expect much from Microsoft, but I do expect this text box I'm typing in to post this message to keep up with the speed at which I'm hitting the keys. When move my hands away from the keyboard I can still see the letters appearing.


----------



## iMan (Aug 3, 2003)

Lycander, you must have an old computer like I do running mac os x ;p , I have the same problem. But if I run os 9 it is a lot more responsive. It's all about running the OS/Software that are made in the same 'time period' as your own mac or older. That way your computer will feel responsive.

Viktor


----------



## Lycander (Aug 4, 2003)

iMan,

I'm using an iBook2 800 MHz with QE enabled on a ATI Radeon 7500. This is not old, and the behavior is unacceptable!


----------



## hulkaros (Aug 4, 2003)

Then there is a problem with your setup (OS, browser, whatever) or you have Flash-like typing abilities (you know... the Flash hero from DC Comics)


----------



## Lycander (Aug 4, 2003)

Heh yes I know Flash. But tell me hulkaros, how do you type with such large hands? Do you use a poking stick? Think Simpsons episode when Homer goes really over weight an can't dial the phone.

BTW, I'm using Camino which uses the Cocoa framework so I thought it would be faster since it's more native to OSX.


----------



## hulkaros (Aug 4, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Lycander _
> *Heh yes I know Flash. But tell me hulkaros, how do you type with such large hands? Do you use a poking stick? Think Simpsons episode when Homer goes really over weight an can't dial the phone.
> 
> BTW, I'm using Camino which uses the Cocoa framework so I thought it would be faster since it's more native to OSX. *



Banner is the one who uses the Macs!  I'm the one who smashes Wintels 

The problem you describe is strange. Do you have it in other apps which let you type, too? Sounds strange... So, strange and it isn't normal, too...


----------



## dlloyd (Aug 4, 2003)

I had that problem for a little while, it went away ages ago though. Dunno what I did.

I've noticed that Cocoa apps launch really fast. The Carbon applications usually take quite a bit longer. I guess I'll just wait for Dreamweaver to go Cocoa. Not that I need it, skEdit rulez


----------



## Randman (Aug 4, 2003)

> Banner is the one who uses the Macs!  I'm the one who smashes Wintels


 You should watch the movie again. Hulk does a bad thing and smashes a Mac. A very nice Mac at that. Bad Hulk, bad Hulk. ::evil:: No pudding for you. ::ha::


----------



## hulkaros (Aug 4, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Randman _
> *You should watch the movie again. Hulk does a bad thing and smashes a Mac. A very nice Mac at that. Bad Hulk, bad Hulk. ::evil:: No pudding for you. ::ha::
> 
> 
> ...



Here in Greece the Hulk movie isn't out yet  Still, in the movie the things I smash, aren't real!


----------



## Lycander (Aug 4, 2003)

> _Originally posted by hulkaros _The problem you describe is strange. Do you have it in other apps which let you type, too? Sounds strange... So, strange and it isn't normal, too... [/B]


I think it's only fair that I point out that I have been using Silk, a haxie to anti-alias fonts in Carbon apps. Even ICQ (v3.2, the new one AA fonts now) would pause when receiving a message or sending a message.

But then I disabled Silk and I still see the slow text appearing behavior. So fair it's only in Camino and when I type in a text field. It's weird that even though Camino is Cocoa based, I get the nagging Silk "Trial period is over" message. Like I said, I disabled Silk and Camino still does this, now it does it when I've typed a lot in a text box.


----------



## hulkaros (Aug 5, 2003)

Did you try to download a newer nightly build of Camino? Also, did you try to search and trash for good ALL silk related prefs/plists/etc?

Personally, I download almost every single nightly build of Camino and as of now if my favorite browser!


----------



## Lycander (Aug 5, 2003)

If I wasn't so lazy another solutoin would be to open TextEdit and type my posts there then copy/paste it into this little box  Again, if I wasn't so lazy.


----------



## hulkaros (Aug 6, 2003)




----------



## ApeintheShell (Aug 8, 2003)

I can just imagine that guy with the mullet from the blockbuster commercials
jumping into the article saying, "Are ya fast enough?!"


----------



## fryke (Aug 8, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Lycander _
> *iMan,
> 
> I'm using an iBook2 800 MHz with QE enabled on a ATI Radeon 7500. This is not old, and the behavior is unacceptable! *



Watch my signature, same machine. Behaviour is MORE than acceptable. The machine's just dandy. How much RAM do you have? If you have less than 640 MB, just upgrade. But it might also be that your 'acceptance' barrier is just a tad high. ;-)


----------



## Lycander (Aug 9, 2003)

I have 640 RAM installed, and I'm a neat freak so I had disabled as many things I don't need and close every app as soon as I'm done using it so RAM is not a problem.

Yes my "acceptance" barrier is high, I'll admit that. Don't hate me for saying this, but it's the truth: Windows is more responsive even on a weaker system. But to redeem myself, there's plenty of other great things about OSX that make up for the lack of "perceived" performance.


----------



## Arden (Aug 9, 2003)

Well, if you want to go there, OS 9 is more responsive when I'm typing a reply than apparently it is on your machine.  But that's not the reason for choosing one OS over another.

Hulk, you should put PC in your signature instead of humans.  Don't smash people, people are good!  Smash PC's, PC's are bad.


----------



## ex2bot (Aug 9, 2003)

Lycander,

Check Top or Perfomance Monitor and find out what's crippling your machine!

Doug


----------



## Lycander (Aug 9, 2003)

I don't notice it happening anymore, couple things I've done:

1) Reinstalled OSX 10.2 today

2) Not using Silk anymore

3) Replaced Aqua theme with a more light-weight QNX theme.

Although I haven't really typed long posts in any forums I go to - the slow down occurs mostly when I've typed a lot of text in this box - this iBook is feeling a bit better. Took lots of tweaking but I'm learning to live with it. After a while I just get use to it.

I put Yellow Dog Linux on here yesterday (hence the need to reinstall OSX). KDE is definitely more responsive than OSX, but I couldn't get sleep and airport to work, so back to OSX I am.


----------



## Arden (Aug 10, 2003)

No posts like BusinezGuy's in the Thrill is Gone thread...


----------



## mr. k (Aug 10, 2003)

I can't believe how fast some of the higher end mac's are... Jaguar runs like a beast for me on my humble little iMac... Never does the finder hang, and app's like iPhoto and Graphic Converter are a little slow, but mostly while they are loading.  They speed up while I actually use them.  A Dual 2.0Ghz G5 with 8GB of ram... Holy shit man...


----------



## fryke (Aug 10, 2003)

Just to give you a little idea of exactly _how_ different expectations can be...

I've recently used my old Blueberry iBook (300 MHz G3, 192 MB of RAM) again. The person I've sold it to wanted me to reinstall everything, so for fun, I've installed the Mac OS X Public Beta again (a Cheetah build, 2Xxxsomething) and wrote a short story in TextEdit. And guess what: The little machine was a perfect OS X machine for me for that moment.

Now, on my newer iBook, I do some serious work. I'm using InDesign 2 and Photoshop 7, for example. I have a 1280*1024 17" TFT hooked up to it (using a firmware modification). Sure: Some things are certainly slower than they would be on a Dual 1.42 GHz PowerMac. I don't really want to know, even. And even less how fast it'd be on a G5. I can work very well on this machine and am actually making money with my graphics design, writing etc.

However, back on the real topic from the beginning: Yes, I was also able to do graphics design and word processing at similar speeds back in whatwasthatyear on my PowerBook 520c (25/50 MHz 68LC040 Motorola processor, 24 MB RAM, System 7.5.5) and the accompagnying (spelling?!) PowerMac 8200 (120 MHz PowerPC 601 by IBM with 128 MB RAM, Mac OS 7.6.x). However: My products certainly lacked some things that just weren't possible at those times. The wonderful type features of InDesign, for example, and working in Photoshop took longer for similarly sized files.


----------



## Arden (Aug 10, 2003)

The 520c was 1994-1995.

Better than Windows, right?  Which is faster for you, fryke?


----------



## Lycander (Aug 11, 2003)

I was typing a long post last night in a different forum. Indeed I still get the slow down.


----------



## aaike (Aug 11, 2003)

Today I worked for some time on rather recent PC's with XP and 2000... And I wasn't impressed of the speed at all... Even in the blazingly fast (according to rumors I hear) IE I was sometimes annoyed by strange and not at all fast rendering behaviour. On the 2000 machine I couldn't do anything while I was  transfering some files. At those moments you enjoy being on a multitasking OS... I just learned to love that, often I am doing lot of stuff at the same time. The thing is that you really have to learn that your machine is MT, e.g. I often observe my dad waiting during certain processes ;-).
Btw. I could install iDiskutility on XP without admin-acces, but couldn't run it... I suppose that's not the way installations should be.

Anyway, back on topic. I think my macs speed is OK, although I encounter the beachball of dead from time to time and that sometimes annoys me. Especially when unplugging the UTP cable (by accident) while a remote disk is mounted...


----------



## Arden (Aug 11, 2003)

I like how if you get the beachball in one application (or the Dock), you can move over another and it will change to the arrow, showing that you can switch to this program and it will run fine.


----------



## Lycander (Aug 12, 2003)

So you're telling us we should stop what we're doing and go do something else?  Multi tasking is one thing, but waiting to get something done is another.


----------



## Arden (Aug 12, 2003)

You can get the beachball (or Aqua watch, on my computer ) for any number of reasons.  A program could be processing, or it could be frozen, or it could be loading.  In any case, you can switch to something else while this occurs (unless you need to kill it, of course) and wait for the beachball to, um, bounce away in that program.

Lycander, what song is your signature from?


----------



## fryke (Aug 12, 2003)

What do you mean: Which is faster? I get my work done faster on a Mac, anytime. Not because I'm used to work with the Mac more than I am with Windows, but because it lets me handle files faster. I've had several PCs and Macs (and always used both concurrently), but have always switched back to the Mac soon when I tried to actually get some work done.



> _Originally posted by arden _
> *The 520c was 1994-1995.
> 
> Better than Windows, right?  Which is faster for you, fryke? *


----------



## Arden (Aug 12, 2003)

Exactly the response I was expecting.


----------



## Lycander (Aug 12, 2003)

The quote is from "Shimmer".


----------



## hulkaros (Aug 12, 2003)

My TiBook is fast enough for me! Macs are fast enough for me...

Others (including iWhiners) can go and buy the Wintels/Amds of this world... 

Macs ARE fast...


----------



## Arden (Aug 12, 2003)

New from Apple: iWhine 1.0!  The perfect application for managing your toddler.  An excellent complement to iWant 2.5!


----------



## Lycander (Aug 12, 2003)

Ya know, when I was merging MPEG1 files, yes my iBook felt just as fast as my 2.66 GHz P4.

But here I am having to go through compiling a Linux kernel, XFree86, and KDE... suddenly this iBook doesn't seem so fast anymore  I kid, relax. But yeah it does take a long time.


----------



## mindbend (Aug 13, 2003)

I am extremely demanding of my Macs. I was a very big vocal critic of Jaguar and its so-called Quartz Extreme (what a slap in the face that was). I was also a big vocal critic of Altivec in general and its massive overhype (I spent several weeks tabulating data and trust me, Altivec ain't all that).

OK, now that all the cynical stuff is out of the way, the day to day speed perception reality for me, personally, is as follows:

THE MACHINES

iMac G3 400 (file server only). Runs great. Course nobody uses it, it just serves files. But it's every bit as fast as our old Win2K PIII file server was, plus way more stable and all the rest.

G4 466 SP. Not fast enough for comfortable day to day work in OS X.2.6. My poor business partner grinds it out, but it's rough. Panther may help a little, but let's be realistic. New machine come January for him.

DP 1 Gig (Original). This machine is at the very bottom threshold of what I would call comfortable. Apps launch before I want to rip my head off, things render just as I'm finishing my drink. Overall general good experiences. Always room for improvement tho.

DP 867 (mirrored). Pretty much same performance as the DP 1 gig.

--------------

THE SOFTWARE

Lightwave. I don't actually use this as much as I would like to brag I do, but certain renders take many times longer on a Mac than the PC. What else is new? The app, however, on a clean system launches in about a second. Don't ask me how they do it, but it's sweet. I wish all apps could do that. General modeling performance is excellent, but rapidly slopes off to poor when the polys get too high (which isn't all that high to be honest).

Photoshop. Solid. PS can always be faster as I tend to work on gigabyte size files, which bring the machine to its knees. I may actually jump off the deep end and buy a buttload of RAM for the G5 to avoid disk swapping. That would be something to be able to move a gig file around in RAM. [wanders off dreamy-eyed for a moment]

Final Cut Pro. Solid to very good. FCP 4 can do quite a bit without choking too much. Love it. I will pee myself on a G5 with FCP 4.

CuBase SX. Glass. Nuff said. (Could stand to render and mix down a touch faster. Bet it's crazy on a G5).

InDesign/Illustrator. Standard GUI sluggishness that plagues many OS X apps. I hear they are prioritizing that problem with future releases coming soon.

After Effects. Average. Nothing special in terms of speed. Can't wait to see what the big box can do with it. Now if Adobe will just program it properly to really take advantage. Not holding my breath.

Dreamweaver. Glass.

Safari. Almost glass. Call it Plexiglas.

Acrobat 6. Adobe should be destroyed for this piece of trash (performance wise). I mean SLOW. If you thought Acrobat 5 was slow, get your hands on this syrup. I'll be using Panther's 1.4-compliant Preview from there on out except for editing. I'd use Preview now, but I need 1.4's transparency support.

-----------

WHAT IS SPEED?

Everyone has different needs and I can respect that. Hopefully they can respect my opinion, which is that the G4 has (had) a LOT of room for speed improvement. Duh. 

Thankfully the G5 will solve most of that problem. However, even if I get a full 100% speed increase, it still won't be as fast as what I would need to be as productive as I can imagine (30 minutes to render instead of 60 minutes is great, but it's still 30 minutes). I can move way faster than my Mac (or any PC I've used), so my dream machine is still a good 10-15 years away. Nonetheless, I'll be loving the G5 as much as I can.

What helps a lot is multitasking. That is majorly effective, especially on the DP machines. It's amazing what you can do simultaneously that we could never dream of in OS 9. Rendering isn't nearly as painful when you can keep working in the foreground without hardly a hiccup.

What will really take it to the next level is multi-threading. Photoshop especially, but FCP too and others would be infinitely more productive if we could do an Image Resize on that 1 gig file, but keep working on that 20 MB file in the same app. Some apps do seem to multi-thread to some extent and the effect is huge. The other day I was importing a bunch of photos into Portfolio and found, surprisingly, that I was able to continue keywording the other photos that were already cataloged. Wow! Likewise, CuBase lets you do all kinds of stuff inside the program while you're recording! Whoah!

I admit, I'm on the critical end of things. I was also painfully close to switching to the dark side. Speed was just that important to me. Thank God for the G5. Seriously, thank God. That would have been one sad day for me to have switched.


----------



## Arden (Aug 14, 2003)

But do you think you'd enjoy your work more on a PC than on a Mac?  PC's don't have nearly the multitasking that Macs do, so right there you're dead in the water.  You'd have to live with the counterproductive Windows interface.  And you'd spend more time troubleshooting your PC than waiting for your Mac to finish a job.

BTW:  The G5's have a 6 GBps data throughput for RAM.  That should suit you well.  RAM's cheap; always stock up as much as possible.


----------



## hulkaros (Aug 14, 2003)

So, mindbend, are you getting a G5? If yes, which one?


----------



## mindbend (Aug 14, 2003)

I'll spring for a G5 in January. I'm hoping for a speed bump after the Expo, but that's not why I"m waiting. I have a two-year rule and January is the two year anniversary of the box I'll be replacing.

I'm also not worried about so-called Rev A problems. I've bought many Rev A machines for years and never had any more trouble than Rev B machines.

Part of it is that I'm going to be completely objective and see what the G5 reviews (official and unofficial) say. I'm also going to the Apple store and running some tests of my own. If it's what I expect it to be, then I'll pop for it.

As for dealing with Windows, obviously I'm fully aware of the Mac benefits, but since I make my living entirely from computer performance issues, I'd be stupid to ignore the (previously true) fact that the PC absolutely destroyed the very best Macs in performance across the board. And before anyone challenges me on it, don't waste your breath, I have all the self-confirmed data (we use PCs here too) to prove it. I can accept a small performance gap, maybe even as high as 20% for the pure bliss of OS X, better multi-tasking, better experience, things just "work", etc. But at some point, when I'm still waiting for things to render, launch, open, transfer, copy, paste, etc., I'm losing money. Period. That ain't gonna happen.

I fully expect the G5 to solve all those problems.

Hulk, you've got one on order, yes? Can't wait to hear your (objective) reviews. And none of that first day, holy crap it's faster than anything stuff. But one of those truly objective, month long analysis reviews.  We all (me included) tend to suffer from the illusion that things are better/faster than they really at first, especially when we just dump a few thousand dollars on a new machine.


----------



## hulkaros (Aug 14, 2003)

Methinks that with the G5 it will not be an illusion even from first day... Especially my Dual G5/2GHz: It IS a speed demon! I'm 100% sure! 

But what I cannot wait for is the combination of Panther and G5! Even on my TiBook G4/1GHz and PowerMac G4/933 Panther WWDC Preview smokes the Jaguar in almost everything... I cannot even imagine the final version of Panther combined with the powerful Dual G5! 

An illusion? Nah! Kicking bottoms more like it! 

Bottoms up ladies and gentlemen! Bottoms up!


----------



## tsizKEIK (Aug 14, 2003)

ive got a power mac g4 933mghz (soon to be replaced by a powerbook and later on a G5 .. (i hope)) 

anyways,. when dealing with simple tasks its very fast.
it takes hours though to convert a VIDEO_TS to a SVCD ... but who cares ?
at the same time ill be browsin on the net, recording a DVD or rippin any music to aac, talkin to my cousin on ichat, using VPC, checking my mail, sending files to/from my sony ericsson P800.. etc...
my point is that the system barely slow down, and i can get 2-3 things done at the same time. and that is fast enough for me


----------



## Trip (Aug 14, 2003)

Yay! My mac sucks!


----------



## Arden (Aug 14, 2003)

Trip, you think you've got a crappy Mac, I use a G3/233 Mhz and an iMac/400 Mhz.  Sure, they're both perfectly usable in OS 9, and the iMac is nearly perfectly usable in OS X, but I sure would love a computer with a processor > Gen. 3.


----------

