Slashdot Mirror
Dual 1Ghz G4 PowerMac With Extra Yummy
A huge number of readers submitted the new
Dual Ghz Power Mac that
Apple has announced. Includes a Geforce 4 and assorted other bells and
whistles that will ring and blow for the Mac Junkie. They start
at $3k and seriously make me want a Mac.
I just bought a dual 500 G4 PowerMac about 1 1/2 years ago for $3,000 w/ an ATI Rage Pro 128. Now I can get a dual 1Ghz PowerMac w/ a GeForce4 for $3,000. Awesome!
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
The high end is 3k, the low end starts at 1,600. But that's without a superdrive or the GeForce4
Darn, Mac missed a chance to start off a new line of hyper-cute with some quality components.
Where are the crazy features? How about four little feet that walk around to amuse the user? Or a spout that collects humidity to make a wicked glass of iced tea every few hours?
------
Today's Top Deals
Well, it differentiates the Pro Macs from the iMac, for the short term. The price has nudged down, and the features have gotten boosted. All this is good.
However, the chipset hasn't been updated yet (ergo no ATA100 or DDR support yet), it's the same FireWire (meaning the newer high-speed FireWire isn't ready for Prime Time yet), and the top-end speed isn't quite as fast as I had hoped/expected. I was thinking the speeds would be more like 933/1000/dual 1133 this time out.
But all in all, it's a good short-term move assuming the G5 is available in the next couple of months. But despite the specs, it reminds me of the original "Yikes!" G4 towers, which were just Yosemite towers tweaked for a G4 to hold the line while Apple got more of the high-speed chips that their real G4 was designed for. Yikes only lasted a few months before the Sawtooth version took over.
This is, I hope, pretty much the same thing.
-- Josh Turiel
"2. Do not eat iPod Shuffle."
seriously make me want a Mac.
:)
My friend started saying things like this after he got a girlfriend too. We had to set up an intervention session. I propose we do the same before Taco starts posting reviews of "A Walk to Remember".
The lowest priced PowerMac model is $1599 (US, no display). That's with the single-800 MHz processor.
The *top of the line* model with the dual-GHz is $2999.
I know that this article is specifically about the dual-GHz model, but don't give the impression that PowerMacs start at $3k. They're not all that expensive.
The blurb at http://www.apple.com/powermac/ has a section entitled "Cache Advance" that should be good for a smirk, or at least a raised eyebrow.
It says, and I am not making this up, "In the 933MHz and dual 1GHz Power Mac G4 models, faster-than-light processor speed gets an additional boost with [now here comes the technical stuff--DPBS] advanced cache memory architecture that provides ultrafast, dedicated memory with massively enhanced throughput."
You know, as opposed to lesser machines that have only fast, dedicated memory with enchanced throughput.
But, wait, there's more... in this remarkable machine, "Accessing data from main memory is significantly faster than accessing data from the hard drive..."
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
In addition, the PowerPC G4 can perform four (in some cases eight) 32-bit floating-point calculations in a single cycle -- two to four times faster than processors found in PCs.
That's fast. I just love the details behind the facts: Pentiums suck, I'll take 1 G4 over a P4 at ANY speed. Anyway, enough trolling, if you click on the processors link in the article, apple gives a pretty nice overview of why their dual processor G4's are really, really nice.
~ now you know
No more. I've got friends with Macs and knowing a thing or two about operating systems I'd pick Mac OS X over Windows any day - and thus I'm now also going to convert from PC/Windows to Apple computers. I seriously hope more and more people will do this, not just those with a techie background that can see through the MS commercials and understand that for what they use their computer for, they really really should go Apple.
Price? Umm. Let's not go there. I'm going for the iMac instead
it's in my head
Under MacOS 9 you needed specially tuned apps to take advantage of that second CPU... Like Photoshop.
Under MacOS X, it's no longer required, and EVERY app now benefits from that second CPU. Just like Linux or Solaris would.
I've been using mostly PCs and Sun workstations, but these new Macs with OS X actually make me reconsider... the pricetag is ok I guess, the OS is solid (unix-based), PPC is a clean architecture, and it could be used by my mom while I can run all the GNU goodies I want.
Now if they have standard connectors for the display etc. (unlike some older models), it's definitely an option. That "superdrive" starts making DVDs interesting, even though 'til now I boycott them on principle (region code, CSS) - CDs are getting a bit limiting in size...
Oh well before I get serious about replacing my current setup, the G5 will be available...
For those in a hurry, here is the editted summary ...
A quantum ... revolutionary ... and ... Mac ... floating ... fearsomely fast ... through the ... barrier ... runs ... and crunches ... Pentium 4-based ... super models.
Off the charts, with hot ... fluid motion and ... phenomenal ... overdrive ...snap ... three brilliant ... creative professionals.
Faster-than-light ... ultrafast ... massively enhanced throughput ... significantly faster... even faster ... boosting ... for shooting large ... Keyboard features.
What more do you need to know?
Cheers,
Toby Haynes
Anything I post is strictly my own thoughts and doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the opinions of IBM.
hrmph. As both a Mac and windows user, I can't say that I was particularly impressed at first by these new machines.
Apple really needs to ramp up their speed--and since most people were expecting 1.2 Ghz G5 machines, this upgrade will come as a dissapointment to many.
The new machines also use PC-133 SDRAM, which is, to say the least, sad.
There are some nice points about the new macs, though. Apple seems to have greatly improved the interior architecture of the machines, enabling the PCI bus to run at 215MBps instead of 133MBps, and giving more dedicated bandwidth to hard drives et ect. The new machines also feature an AGP 4x slot, whereas (to the best of my recollection) the older PowerMacs only had AGP 2x. The GeForce 4 MX is nice, of course, though until I see some real benchmarks comparing it to Radeon 8500 and the high-end older GeForce 3 cards, I won't be impressed.
Well, here are the total specs of the new machines.
My overall impression is "Nice, but not nice enough."
I, for one, will wait for the G5 to buy a new mac. MacWorld New York, anyone?
At least Apple has done well in the last few months. Although I don't think I would purchase an Apple desktop computer, their Powerbooks running OSX would make me reconsider buying an x86 compatible laptop.
/.'s archnemesis (no name required,) the amount of options people have, especially in the day-to-day tasks of word processing, spreadsheets, collecting SPAM etc., are much better now that Apple is putting out products everyone wants to use.
Unfortanately for us, the mainstay of application toolkit consists of programs designed exclusively for Windows. On the background side, we have confugured our network services exlcusively around linux servers. Sure, maybe OSX is capable of handling such things in the near future, maybe even now; I really don't need a (reasonably) expensive Apple computer to the work an old PII can.
On a more positive side, I have seen the grass on the other side of the fence. My first subject revolves around a family, who for several years used windows. First 95, then 98 then ME. This family had so many issues with their computer system, and no idea how to correct them that they just went out and bought an iMac because "everything worked." Now they want iPod's, iBooks, and the likes because Apple products work both for those without an inkling of knowledge as well as those who know exactly what they're doing.
It is also my opinion that the best applications for sound recording (please read audio, not MIDI sequncing, not waveform generation ala Max/MSP,) but straight recording are available only for the PC (Samplitude 2496 and Sequoia.) As always you are free to disagree. Our studio uses such software exclusively, but a young woman asked us for advice on buying her first computer. We suggested an Athlon-based PC and an inexpensive but high quality recording card (M-Audio, Echoaudio, Terratek etc.) So she buys a Socket 423 P4, with a SoundBlaster live. Needless to say things didn't work right from the start. The system came preloaded with ME, and when we helped her switch to 2K for stabilitie's sake, Dell informed us the warranty was void without the original OS supplied with the system. On top of that this woman's knowledge of computers was non-existent (not necessarily a bad thing, just a drawback.) She is the type of demographic for which the Macintosh is perfect, and it was silly of us to recommned otherwise because we've been back there setting up the computer on many occasions.
Apple's current efforts to provide not just an alternative but a viable one should be applauded. Though Apple is, in business models, equaly monopolistic as
psxndc
The emacs religion: to be saved, control excess.
You realize that Apple has this new OS called OS X, right? It's built around the mach kernel and BSD. It's fast, it's stable, and you can compile tons of *NIX goodies to run on it. You can also deploy WebObjects apps, and the GUI admin tools make things easier for those who are new to operating a server. It might not rule the server world, but OS X Server has been well reviewed, and will certainly steal back marketshare in K-12, university, and creative environments where NT and its derivatives had made inroads.
The Mac is now finally a serious Java development platform. You can use all manner of GNU tools on the Mac. As for production, in the worlds of video production, audio production, web production, and print production, the Mac has always been very strong. With OS X, Apple will be able to regain a firm lead in these areas.
As more and more apps are ported to OS X, and as more brand-new Cocoa apps are written, the platform will become even more attractive to creative industries. Dual-processor machines running OS X are a godsend to people using memory-intensive apps like Illustrator and Final Cut Pro.
Macs have always been labeled as "cute", particularly after the release of the initial iMac four years ago. But Apple has changed its ways to a large degree. Sure, they make eye-catching products that are easy to use, but they're also now transitioning to a truly powerful OS that plays very well with UNIX, Linux, and even Windows.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
The GeForce4 MX seems to be pretty seriously crippled (like the GeForce 2MX before it). On this page you can see that it pulls in about 115 fps at 1024x768. Compare that with this page which shows a GF3 Ti500 doing 190fps under similar circumstances.
I'm not saying that it's all that bad, and the graphics performance is very nice indeed, but the GeForce4 moniker might be a bit misleading to people who might presume it's the next generation: That little MX designation is a clue that it isn't necessarily a step up from a GeForce 3.
Video editing groups. There is a serious following of apple in the multimedia area. Final Cut Pro has dragged in tons more video editing people. Guess what? Apple still has the attention of tons of desktop publishers, a lot of smaller, independent editing houses, and graphics departments inside larger corporations. They are apple's market. My college would be buying them for a digital editing lab, a highschool doing video editing may get a bunch of iMacs and a few G4s to do the high end rendering, for the kids who want to do work that iMovie can't. And the machines are also possible servers for all of the above people.
And these machines are just something to keep the iMac from undermining the Power Mac G4 sales, supposedly the G5's will be out soon.
I use it mostly for development and as a unix admin workstation. I hack around with python and objective-c and even play Retrun-to-cstl-wolfenstein on it.. I imagine that I will be using it for another 8-12 months before it gets retired as a server or nat box (Which would replace my wifes old nappy-iBook (think toilet seat)). The cool thing about the iBook is , with exception of a huge hard disk
I find myself upgrading my PC about once every 12-14 months, I expect to get at least 2-3 years out of my G4 (as I almost have done with my iBook)
Cheers
Again, we bring the argument of CISC v. RISC up, and in this day and age that is of more importance than a chip's megahertz, which is simply a marketing myth (a well-spun one, but a myth all the same). The question should be: "How fast will the system do what I need it to do?" not "How fast is the system?" I suggest taking your dream Intel box and the top Power Mac and benchmarking them - especially looking at apps like Photoshop and Mathematica under Mac OS X. Once you've done that, then you can make the claims you're making and have things to back them up with...
ya. the computer you built has its own sound processor, whereas the G4 processors have to handle sound themselves. so while you're getting 145fps, that powermac with an actual sound card will probably be cranking out 150-160. crank it up to 1600x1200 and you'll watch your computer lose, and big time. i know, because i have a dual g4 with a geforce3 and a dual athlon with a gf3 ti500. the athlon is faster, but the g4 will still smoke yours when you add a real soundcard.
Food for thought.
Every once in a while I like to masturbate a new word into my vocabulary, even if I don't know what it means.
the reason why I don't have a Macintosh is because I
can't build one.
I wish that I could go to the store, buy the components, and put one together myself, just like
I can with a PC. I know I can't as a result of
Apple owning much of the hardware.
I read this article and I agree with the author. It'd be nice if apple sold barebones G4s. That would make owning a Macintosh cheaper and more fun since you could easily customize by yourself.
"You spoony bard!" -Tellah
Actually, in Quake3, there is a limit that you need on Frames Per Second. The way Q3 does the rounding, the optimum FPS score is 142 for single-player games and 125 for multiplayer games. With your com_maxfps set to these values, you will strafe-jump farther and faster. It actually *can* make a big difference.
As far as 115 - it is rather sad, considering that my dual Athlon with a GeForce3 Ti 500 gets 200+ frames per second @ 1600x1200 (though I have it maxed at 125 - see above). But I have my settings tweaked well. My Dual G4 performs rather admirably as well - 1280x1024 and it runs about 130 frames per second. I could get it much faster - one only needs a sound card, which will relieve the processor of a significant burden. Try running Q3 with the sound off and it will be nearly as fast as current PC's, just as it should be.
Every once in a while I like to masturbate a new word into my vocabulary, even if I don't know what it means.
Just for fun, try to build a comparable brand name PC for $3000.
I tried with Dell and ended up with a $5,071 quote. I'm sure my specs can be debated, but I got:
--Dual Xeon 2.2Ghz (Hard to tell if this is a good comparison)
--512 MB RAM
--80GB HD
--ATI Fire GL2, 64MB,VGA/DVI (Best I could find on their site, besides high-end)
--Sound Blaster Live! Value
--Windows XP Pro
Anyone have any idea whether the Xeon 2.2Ghz is fair to compare with at all?
The G4/DP 1 gig is a very appealing option, except:
THEREFORE Your system can only work with one Apple display, because only one card slot has this power connection.
What I'm getting at here is that Apple boasts that all the new Power Macs have support for dual monitors built in, but for a company who puts so much work into beautiful designs, they expect me to use two different, cosmetically mismatched displays! I don't believe that a VGA connector belongs on a flat panel due to inherent flickering issues, so that means a flat display on the ADC and a CRT on the VGA port. Ugly!
If I want two displays that look the same, I have to enter into an imposing combination of needlessly wasted PCI slots, buying redundant cable adaptors, and spending a lot of money!
I would love to have a DP 1 GHz with dual Apple 17" Studio displays. I really would. But the premium is too high.
Apple should bury ADC now and issue an admission of stupidity.
Apple did a great job of embracing standards with USB, and is arguably responsible for its success. Why they chose to suddenly abandon the DVI connector on Yosemite and original Sawtooth computers is a mytery to me. DVI was just catching on as a standard way of connecting flat panel displays. If Apple hadn't moved to ADC, we would have seen more Wintel video cards with DVI conectors on them now, because there would be more DVI-connected monitors on the market.
Apologies for the rambling post... ADC has bothered me right from the start and now these new dual cards seem like the ultimate inconvenience.
Every time someone posts a new Mac product announcement, we get these two ridiculous comments:
(1) "I could build a comparable Athlon box for way less money."
Yes, you probably could. But Apple is a premium brand. Think Sony. You do pay extra for an integrated software-hardware package, good industrial design, 90 days free tech support, etc. You may not need or want these things but some people do. In particular, Apple's ease of use is somewhat predicated on the OS knowing exactly what hardware configuration to expect, so the user doesn't have to mess around with device drivers and kernel extensions.
(2) "I can't believe Macs still have only a one-button mouse. What a bunch of morons. When will they get with the program?"
Buy a Mac. Then spend $15 and buy a 2-button scroll-wheel mouse. You won't have to install anything because OS X already supports it, context menus and all. My Mac's mouse has 4 buttons and a wheel. Macs come with a 1-button mouse for good reasons, like ease of use for first-time or novice users and purity of the original mouse metaphor (point at things and click on them). There are actually users out there (including PC users) who find the second button confusing and may not know what to do with it.
Sorry for the lengthy rant. But I just keep seeing these comments over and over again, and they miss the point.
Explicitly, Apple's OpenGL doesn't include support for:
Obviously, Carmack was able to get needed programming info to make these things work, why not the rest of us? Is it that game developers now need to beg Apple to work on cutting edge technology on their machines? In my opinion this is killing any reason to use OpenGL over DX8/DX9 for future game development. Even if OpenGL itself supports advanced features that rival DX, I can't use them to build a cross-platform game. If that's true, what's the point of using OpenGL? (I actually like the DX8 programming model better.)
Dan
seriously make me want a Mac.
/. : Apple introduces new hardware/software X !
I'll assume Taco doesn't have a mac from this comment...
Why? You see these posts all the time:
Poster: Wow, now that Apple has X I really/finally want one!
Why do people do this?
Do you yap all morning about how you want a cup of hot coffee, and never get one? Then repeat the process tomorrow when there is a fresh pot?
I wanted my Apple (now outdated) and so I invested my $3500k 4-5yrs ago, and it was/is awesome. Now with some of the new stuff they are coming out with I'm PLANNING on getting another... not just talking about it...
If you think Apple's stuff is worthy, buy it.
Just my gripe...
I do agree that OS X is a pig, but disagree that it is the underlying design. Something went terribly wrong in the transition from NextStep to OS X.
My Turbo-Color Slab from NeXT (33Mhz 68030 (040?) IIRC with 32MB of RAM) seems just as zippy as my 400Mhz G4 with 1.5GB of RAM.
okay. you're lying. either that or exaggerating. i know this because, believe i am typing this response in OmniWeb 2, running on NeXTSTEP 3.3, running on a TurboColor. it's a good exercise in patience, bringing me back to my old days.
www.nytimes.com, for example, takes about a minute and a half to render. this may have been "zippy" then but no one can say the same now. what is more admirable, i think, is that i can use this as the only head in my room (i have a NetBSD/x86 box, but it's running headless) and i have something that is both beautiful and functional. but not zippy.
750Mhz Pentium III: 1.9Mkey/sec
1.33G AMD: 4.7Mkey/sec
8x250Mhz SunSparc Ultra: 3.2Mkey/sec
2x800Mhz G4: 16.5Mkey/sec
Ummm....NO. What a longer pipeline does is allow you to run a higher clock speed. The P4 explicitly gave up IPC (Instructions per clock) and took a big hit for pipeline stalls (What happens when the speculative execution unit guesses wrong) in order to hit 1.5 GHz and above. The Athlon XP does this as well, but it's a much smaller hit than the P4, due to a shorter Pipeline (About 10-12 stage IIRC). In fact the Current G4 (PPC7450)made the same trade off, to get to 800+MHz, but it still only has a 7 stage pipeline, vs a ~10stage one for the Athlon and 20 stage pieline for the P4. The IPC on the G4 is higher than any current x86 processor, this gives the G4 about a 130% advantage over a similarly clocked Athlon, or a 150% advanyage over a P4. The G4's big advantage is Altivec. The G4's Altivec Unit is so much faster than the P4's SSE unit it's not funny, the G4's are also FPU monsters. This is where the big performance for Graphics and DV work comes from, otherwise, the Macs are still a bit slower than a top end PC overall, but since the G4 is the fastest thing out there in its target market, it doesn't matter.
The Crazy Finn
(Note that performance margins are guesstimates based on Benchmarks and relative IPC)
"You've got an invalid haircut" -Warren Zevon - Life'll Kill Ya
It is also my opinion that the best applications for sound recording (please read audio, not MIDI sequncing, not waveform generation ala Max/MSP,) but straight recording are available only for the PC
Um.... Pro Tools? Pretty much considered the industry standard for digital audio workstations?
And if you want, Cubasis, Digital Performer, PEAK's apps, and a whole host of others. To be fair, I've never used Sequoia or Samplitude. But there are plenty of quite serviceable audio recording solutions for the Mac.
Libertarianism is rich wolves and poor sheep playing gambler's ruin for dinner.
I see a lot of price comparisons going on here, and while that's all well and good, people are tending to glaze over a few important facts.
.. $999.00
..$999.00
...$7995.00
... $3995.00
1- These are workstation class machines (as far as Macs go). 2mb L3 cache per proc, 64-bit pci, 1000/100/10 NICs, superdrive, etc. Apple knows its target audience and delivers what they need.
2- Once you're up in this price range, the price is usually moot for the buyer. The people buying these machines will drop 10k for one box (for CPU, software, monitor, etc) and don't bat an eye. I mean, do you think the average consumer would shell out 600+ bucks JUST for Photoshop if they had no viable means for a Return on Investment? That's what a Mac is to the people who buy their high end machines - a way to get work done NOW. Any downtime means they don't get their RoI, and that's why these people don't usually build their own boxen, and why they will pay a premium for a Mac.
3- To respond to a few earlier posts.
--Macs are the deFacto standard for professional audio, and will only become more so. Id say 80% + market share for this. I've been to many recording studios, and without fail, they have a Mac or 2 hooked up.
--64bit pci.. Well, there are only a few kinds of cards you'll find in the average Mac. High end video, ultra160 SCSI, high end audio and special purpose accelerators (encoding, graphics effects, etc). All of these are high bandwidth tasks.
Yes, you COULD build a PC that has faster specs for less. But you'd be missing the point. Computers are tools. If you're making money with your computer, and you're in one of the businesses where Apple products excel, you're shooting yourself in the foot to go with anything else. And I imagine with OSX, that the sector where Apple products excel will only be getting bigger.
Here's a Pro Mac purchase for Graphic Design / ProSumer Video/ audio. Feel free to make up a comparable PC.
Right from the apple store... I know I could save money buying HD and ram elsewhere, but I am shooting for convenience. Make sure PC has - sound card, 64bit pci, firewire, case, motherboard, dual head support, and an OS (that has all the comparable apps)
(1 GHz PPC G4) x 2
1.5 GB dram
22" cinema display
iPod
SuperDrive
GeForce4 MX
56k modem
10/100/1000 NIC
keyboard/optical mouse
AirPort card
OSX.1
Dual channel ultra160 card
(72 GB ultra160 HD) x 2
AppleCare plan (3yr hardware replacement)
TOTAL............. $8,845.00
Now, the software....this is usually full retail, not going to look for deals.(mostly right from apple store)
DVD Studio Pro
FinalCut Pro3
MS Office..$459.95
FileMaker Pro...$249.00
AfterEffects Pro..$1499.95
Illustrator...$399.00
InDesign...$699.95
Photoshop...$649.95
GoLive...$399.95
BBEdit...$119.95
Flash5...$399.95
That's enough to do most tasks......not going to look for pro audio equip or a pro video capture card (add about $3-6k for that at least)
TOTAL.........$6875.65
Time for the pro Audio and video cards
ProTools HD 1
Protools 192 IO
Can't think of a video card Mfg ATM, ill go with
Media100 for ~ 4,000
Add in some accessories
Graphics tablet..$400
Speakers...$600 (reference monitors)
17" studio display...$999 (definitely need a second display)
TOTAL....... $17,989
I'm sure im missing a few things, and this hasn't even included the supporting equipment that I would need (cameras, sound recording equip, scanners, etc, etc.)
So, for pretty much what you would have stuck inside the box, or hanging directly off of it, you have a grand total of..........
GRAND TOTAL......$33709.65
Can most people personally afford 7k+ for software alone? No. So now you see the market Macs are often used in, and the money generally tied in to them, and why people choose Macs to get work done. Fast. Efficiently. It has to be easy; it has to work, because they need to make back such a huge amount of money.
"Stuff... In my home!? NEVER!" - Zim on Invader Zim
"I want the toilet seat!" - Little Dog on Two Stupid Dogs
"Reality is just a convenient measure of complexity" -Alvy Ray Smith
if Apple wasn't so anti-competitive there would be lots of nice cheap apples floating around
Anti-compeitive?
They make their own software for their own hardware so they're anti-competive? They have to compete with each and every computer maker in the industry. You aren't forced to buy a Mac. In fact, if anything, most people are forced to buy a Windows machine.
Apple brings in 30% gross margins on average on hardware sales, but it's not like they just toss all of the money in a big pile. Apple reported a fiscal Q1 revenue of $1.38 billion. Do you know how much was profit? $38 million.
See, Apple actually creates and maintains products. They give away things like iDVD, iMovie, iPhoto and iTunes for free with every machine they sell. They also give every Mac owner free email, free web space -- all without ads.
A company like Dell doesn't really compete by coming up with new products per say. They take the newest intel processor and the newest rev of Windows, stick it in a box, and sell it to you on a razor thin margin. They compete primarily on the sale, secondarily on the product.
This is great if all you care about is a cheap PC that does the same stuff your old one did, but faster. Unfortunately, this thinking has contributed to a huge downturn in the PC industry. At some point, PC makers decided cheap and fast was all that mattered. Somebody forgot about inventiveness and experience. Cheap and fast is good in some situations, but you cannot rely on that entirely. You have to move forward on fronts besides clock rate.
So the fact that you pay more for a Mac means Apple can afford to create things like Mac OS X, iTools, iDVD, iPhoto, etc. It also contributes to the support of things like Darwin. Thank goodness they're doing this kind of stuff, because few others are.
- Scott
Scott Stevenson
Tree House Ideas
Don't try to play the game with a winmodem piece of shit.
Also, drop another 2GHz Pentium 4 in there and that computer might be up to competing with the dual 1GHz G4.
Where the hell is your FireWire and Gigabit Ethernet?
I have a website. It's about Macs.
The NBC crew in Afganistan kept a Powerbook as part of their equipment because they could do in field editing of footage shot with the Sony VX2000 they were carrying. More interesting than that (which I find damn cool) is a lot of editing was done with iMovie. I think it is an NBC policy now that PBs are given to crews using DV cameras. How many companies offer a full video editing suite that can run off of a battery?
I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.