is it wise to buy a Mac now?

Anytime you need (or want) a new computer is a "wise" time to buy a Mac!

Hell... You'll probably love it so much that you buy one or two more between now and 2007!
 
Ah, this reminds me of the old days with the then new PowerPC. My old trusty Quadra 660AV was useful for some time after the new PowerMacs came out - in fact, it was BETTER than the new PowerMacs for some time. I'm sure that won't happen this time. Does anyone remember how Office for the Mac ran like a dog on the PowerPC? I'm talking 2 - 3 minutes to boot Word. Many suggested it was done purposely by the evil one, because everything else ran fine. However, he is our friend now right? Especially since Macs will be using the same processor his OS runs on? Also, they didn't Have Jobs at that time. It was a bad time for Macs. I sure do hope we don't have to deal with "fat" versions and all that back when the PPC came out.

Any way, I am perfectly happy with a somewhat outdated G4 DP 1 GHZ, and I do a lot of video editing in FCP, sound editing, general writing and office type stuff... It is still a fast machine and I have more than enough apps to keep me happy (except a home drafting/design program...). I'd say go for it if you really need a new computer, but don't go top of the line or $$$ - wait for price drops on mid level models. I think the middle level is always the best buy for the long term. That's why I didn't spend $1000 more for a G4 DP 1.25 GHz when I got my DP 1 Ghz, or the same situation when I bought my G4 450 over a G4 500.
 
Karavite, did you notice that Office seemed to run like a pig on the 3.4GHz Pentium4 in the keynote? I only have my 1.25GHz Mac mini to judge against, and I think it's fair to say Word and Excel are many times faster on mine. Ok, it WAS Rosetta, and after using PearPC before reverting to Mac, it IS a remarkable achievement, but I think for users, most of whom, like me will NOT be wanting to re-purchase their apps again in a hurry, many will notice a DROP in performance.

Also, fat binaries ARE what we are going to go through again, they've just been presented via the Reality Distortion Field of Mr Jobs as Universal Binaries.



I re-affirm my original recommendation BTW, buy a Mac mini. I find myself falling in love with this bunch of circuits more and more each day, quite unhealthy really :)
 
Just a short trip to history... Word back then on the 68K was mostly used in the version 5, which was one of the "elder", real Macintosh apps, whereas the "PPC enabled" one was 6.0.x, which was a port from Windows. Dog slow on both 68K and PPC IIRC.
Microsoft has already said they'll support the intel Mac. And I suspect they know quite a bit about that 'new' processor architecture. ;)

And again: The processors that will be used even in the first Mac mini with an intel processor, is probably going to rock around the PPC Mac mini it replaces - for universal applications at least. Btw.: There were utilities back then that stripped the FAT binaries of the "other" code. Might be the same for universal binaries now, so you can save some space if you want by getting rid of the unused code on your machine.
 
A computer at home is now a comodity. You buy it because you need one today. You know that soon you won't be able to brag about it anymore because it's considered antique. The only real sticker is the price tag of this comodity. But the mini does come in at a "low" price.

So is it wise to buy a mac today. Yes if you need one and doesn't force you to file for bankruptcy.
 
fryke said:
Btw.: There were utilities back then that stripped the FAT binaries of the "other" code. Might be the same for universal binaries now, so you can save some space if you want by getting rid of the unused code on your machine.
Click to expand...
I imagine it will be even simpler now than it was then. I haven't heard any detailed descriptions, but I assume the fat/universal binaries will really just be a standard OS X application package with two different applications inside — the same way you can currently make a Carbon application package with separate OS 9 and OS X versions.

Does anyone know for sure?

What I want to know is, will I be able to make a "morbidly obese" program, that runs on Intel OS X, PPC OS X, PPC OS 9, and 68k OS 7-8? :D (Answer: No. I'm just kidding.)
 
Actually, it should theoretically be possible to create a Carbon app that runs on Mac OS X intel, Mac OS X PPC and OS 9. I don't know whether Carbon for 8.x was updated long enough for it to still work with apps compiled by Xcode 2.1. But 68K Macs, I guess, didn't run with Mac OS 8.5 anymore (8.1 being the last supported OS on the last round of 68K Macs). But then again, it doesn't _really_ matter... ;)

On topic of stripping Universal Binaries: Yes, I guess they'll simply have a second binary inside the .app container.
 
Well, as a new Mini owner (go from an 8600 to a Mini... and /woah/ :p), I can say yes. Heck, I do development for a living, and I still got a Mini after the advancement (although my kit tends to be 1-2 generations behind on purpose, means my stuff works /well/ on a larger install base).

Although my Pismo will be the next on the chopping block, replaced by an Intel-based Powerbook, this way I have both systems, and have a good desktop/laptop pairing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top