Linked by mjhi11 on Thu 16th Sep 2010 20:13 UTC
Apple I love OSNews, but it does seem like some of its editors enjoy just a little too much taking a good natured jab at Apple upon occasion (well, more like every chance that particular editor can get). I thought it time for a little good news and analysis about Apple that critics often overlook.
Thread beginning with comment 441403
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: Comment by Tuishimi
by Morgan on Fri 17th Sep 2010 00:42 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Tuishimi"
Morgan
Member since:
2005-06-29

Upgradability is low, and OS X support cut-off means a >5yr old Mac is obsolete.


Tell that to the happy folks at lowendmac.com and other PPC/old Mac communities. Hell, I used a G3 PowerBook "Pismo" daily until last year when the power cord shorted and fried the logic board. "Obsolete" is relative; that ten year old G3 'book was the absolute perfect writing machine for me. It had one of the best notebook keyboards ever made, it was quick enough for simultaneous writing, web browsing and listening to music, and it was one of the most durable Mac notebooks ever made. Sure, I'd never play Doom 3 on it, but why would I want to? It was a tool that did its job well, and I am still torn between getting another one and moving into this decade with a new MacBook.

Back to the iMacs in question: All Intel iMacs, all G5 iMacs and most later G4 iMacs can run Leopard, which hasn't been cut off at all. The only thing truly obsolete on those PPC Macs is the video processor, as it is integrated into the logic board and limits usefulness with regard to gaming and watching videos.

Also, while they won't run Snow Leopard, by the time 10.7 comes out (moving Leopard to "unsupported") those Macs will be nearing 10 years old anyway. I'd say that is a good run for an all-in-one PC. Try installing Windows Vista (the older of the two currently supported Microsoft OSes) on a maxed out eight year old Pentium 4 and watch it choke and struggle. I know, I've tried it. On the other hand, Leopard on a G4 iMac is as snappy as Tiger.

As for the current crop of aluminum iMacs, I'd expect them to remain useful and supported at least through the next two OS releases.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[5]: Comment by Tuishimi
by mightshade on Fri 17th Sep 2010 00:53 in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by Tuishimi"
mightshade Member since:
2008-11-20

Try installing Windows Vista (the older of the two currently supported Microsoft OSes) on a maxed out eight year old Pentium 4 and watch it choke and struggle. I know, I've tried it.

So did I. Vista ran fine on my good old P4. There was no "choke and struggle", ever. It's a shame that it didn't work for you, but "Vista can't run on a maxed out P4" really isn't true.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[6]: Comment by Tuishimi
by Morgan on Fri 17th Sep 2010 01:04 in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by Tuishimi"
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

I never said it wouldn't run; it was somewhat useable but it was nowhere near the performance of Vista on a modern system. The difference was striking.

Contrast that to a PPC Mac running Tiger and Leopard; if anything it will run slightly faster with the newer OS. I noticed that when I installed Leopard on a G4 eMac. Everything seemed just a bit snappier and even mundane tasks like Finder operations were quicker. The only bottleneck was the video processor, and I knew that going in; it wasn't meant to be a gaming machine anyway.

If I wasn't clear in my previous post, I apologize: My point was that older Macs take far longer to become obsolete than PCs mostly due to the OS. Linux is a similar experience; I find Slackware 13 to be just as useable on a six year old machine as my modern C2D based system. The only time I notice a real difference is when compiling; there's nothing from that era that can compete with a modern dual-core system for processor-intensive tasks.

Edit: I forgot to mention that Microsoft has begun to reverse this trend starting with Windows 7. I had the opportunity to run both Vista and 7 on this Core 2 Duo machine, and 7 was much, much faster than Vista in almost every way. If I still had my P4 I'd love to give 7 a spin on it, I'm sure I'd be impressed.

Edited 2010-09-17 01:07 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2