RIP G4 PowerMac

squiggleslash writes "An a not entirely surprising move, Apple has taken the PowerMac G4 out of production (see the last few paragraphs of this interesting article in Mac Central about the new G5s.) The PowerMac G4 had continued to be in production largely for users of Mac OS 9, and it had been speculated it might be kept as a lower-end headless entry-level Mac. You can still buy them from the Apple Store, while stocks last. On a seperate note, it looks like the 3GHz G5 is a while away, and G5 PowerBooks are no nearer production."

Comments

Grammar Nazi

[Anonymous Coward]

An a not entirely surprising move

That this post is on Apple doesn't mean that 'I' should be kicked out and replaced with an 'A'.

Re:Grammar Nazi

[wibs]

To be a true Apple post it should look like this:

iN a not entirely surprising move

Re:Grammar Nazi

[squiggleslash]

To you and the grandparent, my apologies. I'm kind of baffled as to why I didn't pick up on the "An a" thing (it was supposed to be "In". Go figure.)

"Separate." Ok. Got it.

Re:Grammar Nazi

[robbesan]

Does this mean the Quicksilver will finally go down in price?

Message from the Extreme Conclusions Club

[Anonvmous Coward]

"RIP G4 PowerMac"

Apple is taking an obsolete machine out of the market, that means they're dying!!!!

Re:Message from the Extreme Conclusions Club

[prockcore]

Apple is taking an obsolete machine out of the market, that means they're dying!!!!

Apple is taking away the only lifeline for people who use QPS (try every Gannet paper in the world). QPS only runs under OS9 because in classic mode you get sporadic corruption.

Not that Apple should support OS9 forever, but basically they've just end-of-lifed a majority of newspaper's CMSs. This is a very big deal.

Re:Message from the Extreme Conclusions Club

[Have Blue]

It's just as much the fault of the makers of QPS, for failing to port their product to OS X for the entire 5 years that Apple has been saying that OS 9 is a dead end.

Re:Message from the Extreme Conclusions Club

[RzUpAnmsCwrds]

"Holy shit! I had no idea that OS 9 machines are going to stop working! When is this supposed to happen? What, is there like a big switch in Cupertino or something, and Steve's gonna up and pull it one day?

Idiot."

No, actually he's right on target.

Apple is no longer producing systems. What happens when the mobo fries on one of the old PowerMacs? What happens when you need to buy more computers?

That's one of the reasons many businesses are reluctant to choose Apple. They don't want to be at the whim of Jobs for hardware support.

Can you still run Windows 98 on a brand-new Dell? Absolutely.

Can you run Mac OS 9 on a brand new G5? iBook? PowerBook? Not anymore.

Can you dual-boot into Windows 98 for that legacy application that doesn't support Windows XP? Absolutely.

Can you dual-boot into Mac OS 9 for that legacy application that Classic won't run? Not on any Mac that Apple sells.

Re:Message from the Extreme Conclusions Club

[Twirlip of the Mists]

What happens when the mobo fries on one of the old PowerMacs?

You call Apple and have them replace it. (I'm assuming. I have no idea what "mobo fries" means. Is that anything like chili fries? 'Cause I like chili fries.)

Apple's got the same basic support policy as every other vendor: five years after end-of-production to end-of-life.

What happens when you need to buy more computers?

If you're still stuck on five-year-old software and have no intention of upgrading, I'm pretty sure you're not anticipating a monster corporate growth spurt.

Can you dual-boot into Mac OS 9 for that legacy application that Classic won't run?

Can you name one such application? And QPS obviously doesn't count; we've already covered how (1) it's poop, (2) Quark in general has become poop, and (3) the industry is migrating away from Quark products. Let's talk about applications that people still actually use.

Gotta run. I'm desperately craving chili fries for some reason.

Re:Message from the Extreme Conclusions Club

[TheRaven64]

It could also mean that Tiger will have an improved Classic layer, which will be able to run QPS without problems (yes, I know it's unlikely...)

Re:Message from the Extreme Conclusions Club

[noewun]

Furthermore, I don't know HOW long it's been since QPS was used by "a majority of newspapers." It's been an InDesign world for more than a year now, doubly so since InDesign 3 came out last fall.

Not in my experience. ID has a very small user base, and none of it is in major newspapers.

Re:Message from the Extreme Conclusions Club

[Snowspinner]

Will there necessarily be driver support for anything in your new Dell configuration under Windows 98?

Very possibly not.

Hell, I remember when I tried to take a Gateway laptop back from Windows Me to Windows 98 - total disaster. There was no display driver in existence for it under 98.

So this argument overstates the case rather dramatically.

Re:Message from the Extreme Conclusions Club

[Twirlip of the Mists]

ID has a very small user base, and none of it is in major newspapers.

Does the Washington Post count as "major?" How about the Wall Street Journal?

Thou shalt know what thou art talking about before thou postesth.

Re:Message from the Extreme Conclusions Club

[noewun]

Does the Washington Post count as "major?" How about the Wall Street Journal

And I could counter with the New York Times, the New York Post and every Time-Life and Condé Nast magazine. I've got fifteen years in the industry. How about choo?

Re:Message from the Extreme Conclusions Club

[Twirlip of the Mists]

And I could counter with the New York Times, the New York Post and every Time-Life and Condé Nast magazine.

Your information is out of date. Time Warner made the decision to migrate nearly a year ago. Conde Nast did it earlier this year.

I've got fifteen years in the industry. How about choo?

Twenty-one, if you broadly define "the industry." You want to compare resumes, or should we just drop our pants and get a ruler?

Re:Message from the Extreme Conclusions Club

[b1t r0t]

Apple has always said that they would continue to produce these machines in response to demand for them. That they've stopped producing them means that demand has dropped sufficiently for them to rely on existing stocks. So clearly, the "lifeline" isn't so important any more.

Re:Message from the Extreme Conclusions Club

[noewun]

Your information is out of date. Time Warner made the decision to migrate nearly a year ago. Conde Nast did it earlier this year.

Hmm. My friends who work there have told me different.

Re:Message from the Extreme Conclusions Club

[squiggleslash]

Holy shit! I had no idea that OS 9 machines are going to stop working! When is this supposed to happen? What, is there like a big switch in Cupertino or something, and Steve's gonna up and pull it one day?

No, it'll happen more gradually than that.

You see, computers are somewhat complex devices made with lots of little bits and pieces that have what we call an "MTBF" - a mean time between (or before) failures. A lifetime, if you will. This is because it's prohibitively expensive to make something that will last forever.

Now what happens is that after a while, some of the components, generally the ones with the lowest MTBF, will fail. This happens for a variety of reasons - everything from evaporation to wear and tear (components heat up and cool down as their powered and unpowered, and generally because of this they expand and contract. This means that even the most solid looking chip on a motherboard actually has a mechnical aspect to it that can cause damage through fatigue.)

When they fail, the device may still be repairable, but this will depend on a number of factors. To begin with, the failed component might itself not be replaceable (it might be soldered to the motherboard using very, very, fine links, making it difficult for a human to remove and replace.) The replacement component, be it just the failed unit or the motherboard or whatever, might not be available any more. And, over time, this will increasingly become the case - fewer spares, as we call them, will be in stock.

So the short answer I guess is, yes, Mac OS 9 machines are going to stop working. It's inevitable. And if Apple isn't making a device that runs Mac OS 9, then people who need Mac OS 9 will have difficulty continuing.

Re:Message from the Extreme Conclusions Club

[quecojones]

Not in my experience. ID has a very small user base, and none of it is in major newspapers.

So, what you're saying is that in major newspapers, Carmack's FPS aren't all that popular... figures. ;)

Re:Message from the Extreme Conclusions Club

[Moofie]

Get the ruler.

Re:Message from the Extreme Conclusions Club

[metamatic]

What happens when you need to buy more computers?

I've got a G4 I'll swap for a G5, runs OS 9 beautifully.

I've also got an OS 9 capable iBook I'll gladly swap for a new PowerBook.

Let me know if you're serious and not just blowing hot air.

Re:Message from the Extreme Conclusions Club

[Twirlip of the Mists]

If the nightmare scenario you and all the other morons were whining about were true, then there would be a business case for Apple to continue building Mac OS 9 machines.

They're not. Ergo, there isn't. Ergo, it's not.

Re:Message from the Extreme Conclusions Club

[Gropo]

and every Time-Life and Condé Nast magazine.

Then why does my girlfriend keep bringing Quark layouts home from her job at Parade? ;)

Re:Message from the Extreme Conclusions Club

[squiggleslash]

In the first place, I find it absolutely hilarious that someone who thinks that computers can last forever considers everyone else "morons".

On the other, your logic is clearly faulty. Just because demand is there doesn't mean Apple has a complete business case to build Mac OS 9 computers. To begin with, the demand has to be high enough. Additionally, Apple may feel that continuing to build Mac OS 9 computers would undermine its existing product line.

As well as learning some basic engineering, you might want to brush up on your business skills too.

Re:Message from the Extreme Conclusions Club

[Twirlip of the Mists]

What does Parade have to do with Time-Life or Conde Nast?

Re:Message from the Extreme Conclusions Club

[RzUpAnmsCwrds]

"Will there necessarily be driver support for anything in your new Dell configuration under Windows 98?

Very possibly not.

Hell, I remember when I tried to take a Gateway laptop back from Windows Me to Windows 98 - total disaster. There was no display driver in existence for it under 98."

If you Dell has an Intel chipset (like every single Dell produced), then, yes, you will be able to find drivers for Windows 98.

If your system has a VIA, NVIDIA, Intel, or ATI chipset, and an Intel, VIA (S3), NVIDIA, or ATI graphics adaptor, you will have no problems finding drivers for your system.

"Hell, I remember when I tried to take a Gateway laptop back from Windows Me to Windows 98 - total disaster. There was no display driver in existence for it under 98."

If your Gateway had an Intel chipset (and integrated graphics), as most notebooks do, then you should have no problem finding drivers on the Intel website.

Here's a driver for the Intel 845/865/875 video chipset (for Windows 98):

http://downloadfinder.intel.com/scripts-df/filte r_ results.asp?strOSs=18&strTypes=DRV%2CARC&ProductID =865&OSFullName=Windows*+98+SE&submit=Go%2 1

Re:Message from the Extreme Conclusions Club

[vilms]

Condé Nast in the UK are migrating to ID. 'Bout 75% done.
All other UK consumer magazine publishers appear to be making the switch too (IPC, Emap, BBC, Nat Mags etc.).

Re:Message from the Extreme Conclusions Club

[esswedl]

What does Parade have to do with Time-Life or Conde Nast?

Little to do with Time-Life, but Parade and Conde Nast are both owned by Advance Magazine Group, along with Fairchild Publications and the Golf Digest Companies.

And Fairchild still has QPS, for one.

Re:Message from the Extreme Conclusions Club

[falcon5768]

thats because like most of the publishing world, they are under the idea of if it works, run it into the ground even if there is a faster and easier way to do things. Preventing a problem is second to just running with what they have

I wont even begin to tell you the arguments I got into with my printer because he couldnt work with PDF's, at least at the quality I wanted him to. He was quark all the way and it was sickening because by this point it had been almost 3 years of next to zero Quark support while Adobe had gone two versions already and could run circles around Quark....

Go to any major design school right now, you know what they are running....... G3/early G4's with quark in OS 9! Its sick, even some of the teachers rip their hair out because they are running faster powerbooks on the road than most of their equipment, and are supposed to be TRAINING people on!

Re:Message from the Extreme Conclusions Club

[gabebear]

You can still run Win98 on basically any new machine, but drivers are a bit of a pain. Win98 will not support some of the hardware, but the basic machine will still run. Problems come when you start depending on a piece of proprietary hardware, bleck, just don't do that.

If you need to use a piece of software that will not run under Classic, you can always use Basilisk II if the program is 68K compatable. I haven't checked it out yet, but Sheep Shaver has been ported to Darwin, so you should be able to now have a complete virtual PowerPC macintosh running old versions of MacOS. There is also MOL, which currently only runs under Linux/PPC, but may someday get ported over to OSX, that would allow you to boot multiple coppies of OSX on the same machine.

Moof!

Re:Message from the Extreme Conclusions Club

[gabebear]

wow, that's a bit of a Troll, but ...

HP, for example, can deliver hardware that's tested, warranteed, supported, and, most important, homogenous. When a school system buys 2000 new PCs to run Windows 2000 (which predates OS X), they know that every PC will be the same, every PC will be working out of the box (or will be replaced quickly), and that every PC will be supported in two years.

I'd love for someone to point to ANY company still selling new computers with waranties still offering support for Windows 98. Even in the much larger world of PCs you have to EOL stuff. Companies who stay current, stay current. Companies that wait for something to break, massively upgrade. Every OEM supplier offers warranties(HP is not usually rated very highly). How are HPs any more homogenous than any other computer? Macs are a LOT more homogenous when it comes to drivers/system software.

They also know that any applications they buy will still work in five years.

Not all apps are happy to go between 2000 and XP, and a lot of apps broke between 98/ME and NT/2K.Windows XP SP2 is going to break a shitload of apps(many developers are getting ready for this). Hell, any update can break almost anything, a stupid video card update broke our terminal emulator(Reflections) on our Win2k boxes. P.S. Biege and AIO G3s were discontinued over 5 years ago*.

Most teachers won't even notice the change. XP is that compatible. OS X is not. OS X requires new training, new applications (unless you want to use Classic, which isn't exactly a great solution), new servers, and new machines.

Soooo, Windows hasn't ever changed and will never change their GUI? OSX was a huge change, but that was years ago. If you are still bitching about that, then I'll bitch about Windows 3.1 to 95! Wah! Wah! As far as new servers and machines, WTF? Any Mac produced in the last 5 years* is officialy supported by Apple with OSX and OSX will hook up to pretty much any server.

It would be impossible for a 100% OS 8/9 district to become a 100% OS X district. The all-in-one (and beige) G3s simply do not work correctly on OS X. The PII 233s work fine under Windows XP.

This is silly, OSX will install in a biege G3* as much as XP will work on a PII 233, both machines are on the fringe of being usable even with upgrades. People have to retire machines if they want to stay current.

*Apple officialy stopped supporting beige computers running OSX, but you can still install it, and it works well if you upgrade the video card and RAM. These machines were discontinued back in 1998.

Re:Message from the Extreme Conclusions Club

[lawnboy5-O]

QPS, DMS, and DDS - are all native apps on OS X. Check your arse before you speak, you may infact be going the wrong direction.

Re:Message from the Extreme Conclusions Club

[lawnboy5-O]

QPS is OS X native as of this month. As with most of the Globe, it is the industry for workflow. Many contenders will try possibly take a little, but never achives what has been done by Quark. It great for a reason... and getting only better. You should have been at their summit this past first week of June. Other dont stand a chance; if you value the ROI on your workflow that is. They have re-invented workflow, again.

Re:Message from the Extreme Conclusions Club

[lawnboy5-O]

this is outright false. i can tell you that based on the past week at the quark summit. even the new york times has started to migrate back to quark; simple because ID does not cut it. first orders were placed two months ago.

Re:Message from the Extreme Conclusions Club

[lawnboy5-O]

new york times is actually moving some units back - ID does not cut it. they make sexy software, but in the end it ROI that counts. ID does not handle compplex docs very well, and it doesn not deconstruct documents for XML very well either... expecially when compared to quark.

Re:Message from the Extreme Conclusions Club

[lawnboy5-O]

have you ever run XP on a 233? its like trying to run through really thick mud... its terrible! and if you a re still using beige macs - they are 7 years old now - you should talk to the politicians that develop the technology policies - its time to re-up folks!

Re:Message from the Extreme Conclusions Club

[Anonymous Coward]

XPress is far from dead - and far behind? you must be new to the world. read will you? XPress 6 is ok, and 7 rocks.

Re:Message from the Extreme Conclusions Club

[Gropo]

What does Parade have to do with Time-Life or Conde Nast?

Parade is owned by Advance Publications, the same parent company of Conde Nast. Parade used to be a Conde Nast publication, but was uhh... reshuffled to be under Advance a few months ago.

Re:Message from the Extreme Conclusions Club

[squiggleslash]

The all-in-one (and beige) G3s simply do not work correctly on OS X

My Beige G3 runs Jaguar fine. Installed right out of the box.

Sure, it will not run Panther without hacks, but I doubt my six-seven year old 32Mb P166MMX Thinkpad will run Windows XP either.

Re:Good riddance!

[avalys]

The rumor mill is currently predicting (backed up by a few off-the-record comments from Apple) that they'll be announced in January 2005 and be available for purchase shortly thereafter.

It still lives...

[ProfessionalCookie]

It still lives on Slashdot- actually it's the Quicksilver G4 that still exists as the Apple Desktops topic icon.

Now that we're into the second generation of G5's I think an icon update is in order.

Not surprising, and not bad.

[ezraekman]

When I first got my 17" Powerbook, I was dreading my inability to boot into OS 9. After the first couple of months, I stopped missing my OS 9 apps, having found better OS X replacements. Every once in a while, I'd accidentally launch a Classic app, but that was rarely an issue. The only problems I see with OS X now is that it's slightly less secure (though much more stable and powerful), and power users such as myself may run into a lack of available applications for specific tasks. (Rasterizing NOAA vector maps, for example.)

I imagine we'll hear a few people here and there complain about needing to migrate to OS X, but I think the pros for dropping G4s from the line outweigh the cons. Besides, I have a feeling that, unless they require very specific compatibiliy with a legacy app that's no longer available, they're going to be fine. Now we're going to see price drops increase on these suckers dramatically, and suddenly a bunch of students and other low-income folks be able to afford a machine that they didn't think possible for their budget. I'll bet DealMac will be listing some price slashing within a couple of days.

Re:Not surprising, and not bad.

[Blakey Rat]

The only thing keeping my OS 9 system folder around is my MUD client.

The best MUD client ever written for Macintosh is Rapscallion. It hasn't been updated in like 6 years, but it still has twice the features of newer clients. (The website is at www.rapscallion.co.uk ... he's been promising to open-source the project so someone else can port it to OS X, but that message has been there over a year now and no source code in sight.)

Anyway, when I find a MUD client as good as Rapscallion I'll delete my Classic system folder. So there are still a few applications out there that don't exist for OS X yet. (And to be fair, there are also a few OS X MUD clients, but none of them hold a candle to Rapscallion.)

Re:Not surprising, and not bad.

[javax]

...with OS X now is that it's slightly less secure, ...

OS-X is less secure then OS-9???

• OS-X has preemptive multitasking, OS-9 got cooperative
• OS-X has memory protection, OS-9 doesnt
• OS-X has an encrypted file system, OS-9 doesnt
• OS-9 has to be used as super-user (delete the system!), OS-X hasnt
• etc. ...

forget about it, OS-X is far more secure then OS-9.

Re:Not surprising, and not bad.

[Teancom]

The biggest problem I have (and why I'm staying on OS9, at least on one machine) is the gigantic stack of kids games, all written in the mid to late '90s, that my kids love. Things like Putt Putt, Dora, Legos, Farmhouse, Math Rabbit, etc. On the other hand, even the 450Mhz G3 iMac that they're using is grossly over-powered for their needs. If it ever dies I'll just get a $100 used POS and be right back up again...

But this is the same problem that MS faces, trying to get people off of Win98 (and 95!). You can talk about making a break with backwards compatability all you want, but in reality, stuff sticks around for *decades* after you thought it would...

Re:Not surprising, and not bad.

[ezraekman]

I'm not referring to the usability of the system; I'm referring to the number of security holes found in OS X vs. the number found in OS 9. Only one of the examples you gave has anything to do with security, and that one only applies once someone has gained access to the machine in question. I'm referring to the ability to access and/or run code on a box with a basic system left to its defaults.

I'm not aware of a method for remotely executing malicious code in OS 9 unless the user/administrator opens up ports that are closed by default or installs/runs 3rd-party software. (Appleshare doesn't count, as it depends on the user/administrator A) enabling sharing and B) setting it up with no password.) While the number of these security instances is low in OS X, they do exist.

Re:Not surprising, and not bad.

[javax]

well, if you only refer to external security:

• OS-X has a built-in firewall, OS-9 does not.

Nevertheless if someone has found a way to get on your machine, cooperative multitasking, absence of memory protection and absence of root user will make it a breeze to get all the data you have on the machine (even the passwords that are currently in RAM) and also the data of everyone else on this machine.

Security is not one line of defense that is exactly located at your network interface.

The vulnerable browser problem also existed on OS-9 with the Internet Explorer
But following your logic, that doesnt count either, as by default there is no automatic browsing daemon (or user) surfing the web on OS-9... - come on, Appleshare is installed by default on OS-9!

Re:Not surprising, and not bad.

[Anonymous Coward]

Dammit, why did I just use my last mod point modding up my friends? That'll teach me.

Fucking dumbass, what the hell does multitasking have to do with security? Not a damn fucking thing!

I believe what the original poster refers to is the fact that OS 9 is much more secure on the network. This is a FACT. It doesn't support telnet, ssh, etc - there's no way to get a remote shell of any sort on OS 9 to run malicious applications. You can't 0wn an OS 9 box remotely. In that sense alone, OS 9 is much more secure. OS 9 doesn't need a firewall because it doesn't open ports to begin with in normal configurations.

Put it another way - OS X is like a beautifully designed building with lots of doors (for us unix types who like to ssh in remotely) and service bays. It also looks really good. OS 9 is like a building that looks good, works well, but has no doors whatsoever. An outsider on the network can't get in because there's no door to pry open or lock to pick. Oh, and OS 9 is stacked on a beautiful and elegant house of cards, so if anything stomps in the wrong place, it all comes crashing down. OS X is built solid but has the aforementioned openings to the outside.

Re:Not surprising, and not bad.

[harlows_monkeys]

I'm not referring to the usability of the system; I'm referring to the number of security holes found in OS X vs. the number found in OS 9

You can't find holes in something that doesn't exist. OS 9 had no security, hence no security holes.

Re:Not surprising, and not bad.

[ezraekman]

You're kind of talking apples and oranges. You're right that security is not limited to the front door, but it's not necessary to put a portcullis inside the door if you know the door is secure. If you're particularly worried about your files in OS 9, download PGP. But my point is that, unless you screw something up on your own or let others access your machine, you just didn't need that kind of support.

OS 9 didn't have a built-in firewall because OS 9 didn't have a bunch of services running that needed one. Even the built-in mini web server only served files out of a specific directory that most people never touched. Regardless, the firewall in OS X isn't on by default, and therein lies the problem. OS 9 didn't have any security issues (that I know of), that were a part of the operating system. As far as the I.E. security issue goes, that's a problem with an application, not with the operating system. In addition, it's a 3rd-party app, though it ships with the system.

Sure, Appleshare is INSTALLED by default, but it is not ENABLED by default. When you first install your OS, you are asked if you wish to have a Shared Folder, and you then have to go through the steps of creating it. Think of it this way: your house has a lock on the door, and is locked as a default. When you want to get into your house, you need to unlock the door. Now, you're able to unlock it and leave it unlocked, but that's a problem with the user, not with the door.

The point that I'm trying to make is that is was damn hard to get into an OS 9 box unless the user did something really dumb, like leave their password blank. If memory serves, you'd even get a warning if you did so. OS X has had a not insignificant number of security vulnerabilities that existed BY DEFAULT. That is, the box (assuming it was on and had a network connection) was insecure just sitting unused unless the user downloaded a patch. OS 9 did not have these vulnerabilities. It's that simple.

I'm not complaining about OS X; I'll never go back to OS 9 unless I need to run a classic app. I'm just pointing out a relevant fact: that OS 9 was inherently more secure by default than OS X, given recent security issues that have been brought to light. I'm also not advocating less security over more... but in this case it wasn't necessary, and to tell users that they need to keep adding more and more levels of security to a box that's already plenty secure is a waste of your time and theirs.

Re:Not surprising, and not bad.

[Twirlip of the Mists]

Nevertheless if someone has found a way to get on your machine

You do know that there's never been a recorded instance in the wild of a remote compromise of a Classic Mac OS machine, right? You could cook one up in your basement, I'm sure, but it's never happened out there in real life, ever.

come on, Appleshare is installed by default on OS-9!

Installed... but off. It has to be manually turned on.

You'd better back the hell off OS 9, man. As far as network security goes, it's top of the list.

Re:Not surprising, and not bad.

[sokoban]

I had for a long time used Classic apps (from 1989-2003), but switched over to OS X when I got my new G5 in December. I didn't realize until LAST WEEK that I do not have Classic installed on my Computer. I just went and got new versions of all my apps that I really use and installed them. I was even able to find replacements for a few old games that my mom played on her home computer when I switched it to 10.3 (one had graphics done in MacPaint). I think that if you have an app that does not run well in Classic mode then you should probably voice your opinion to the publisher. Truthfully I haven't programmed any for OS X, but I can't see why it would be so terribly hard to port a program from OS 9 to OS X. If it is properly "carbonized" is should run just fine, right? Then again, if a program hasn't been updated in 3-5 years and is crucial to the task at hand, you should probably look for alternatives. Broken functionality is a side effect of progress in the computer world. Perfect backwards compatibility is rarely even close to being so.

Re:Not surprising, and not bad.

[Salvo]

COBOL and Y2K anyone?

Re:Not surprising, and not bad.

[clarkcox3]

Fucking dumbass, what the hell does multitasking have to do with security? Not a damn fucking thing!

On OS9, because there is no preemptive multitasking, and no protected memory, *any* program can:

• Take full control of the machine. Since the multitasking is cooperative (i.e. each program has to voluntarily give up time to other processes)
• Read and write to other processes memory. It is trivial for any program to change another program's in-memory code, or to read sensitive information from another program's memory. This is because every program on OS9 shares the same address space.

Re:Not surprising, and not bad.

[squiggleslash]

Read and write to other processes memory. It is trivial for any program to change another program's in-memory code, or to read sensitive information from another program's memory. This is because every program on OS9 shares the same address space.

This has nothing really to do with cooperative multitasking. The Amiga had/has* pre-emptive multitasking and had/has the same problem.

Probably worth noting, with reference to your first point, that as I understood it there's commonly a key combination you could use to kill the current process. This was also true of the 16 bit versions of Windows (CTRL-ALT-DEL on Windows 3.1 brought up something allowing you to kill the current program or exit Windows completely) At best though, a program that abuses a cooperative multitasking OS can at worst simply hang the computer. This, to be honest, is achievable in a variety of ways under most operating systems, being cooperative merely adds one easy way to do it.

Re:Not surprising, and not bad.

[beegle]

You do know that there's never been a recorded instance in the wild of a remote compromise of a Classic Mac OS machine, right?

Ummm... not true, at least as written. Timbuktu and the like have been responsible for plenty of compromises, and lousy network security and setup has been responsible for others.

The big "advantage" of 9 is that there's really nothing to do once you have remote access. You need a control interface -- either GUI or shell -- and 9 doesn't have one built in.

Re:Not surprising, and not bad.

[Twirlip of the Mists]

Timbuktu and the like have been responsible for plenty of compromises

You can hardly count flaws in a piece of third-party software against the security record of the OS.

lousy network security and setup has been responsible for others.

Name one?

Seriously: there has never been a recorded instance of a compromised Mac OS 9 machine in the wild. Look it up.

Re:Not surprising, and not bad.

[b1t r0t]

Only because 1) there's no shell to take easy control of the system with, and 2) there's no memory protection, so buffer overflows have no way of knowing what address a given programs stack is located at.

The system will crash rather than be taken over. So while it's more "secure" from being taken over, it would be much easier to DoS into crashing.

Re:Not surprising, and not bad.

[clarkcox3]

You need to work on your reading comprehension, I simply stated that multitasking and unprotected memory could be related to security. Nor have I argued that OSX is more secure than OS9

Re:Not surprising, and not bad.

[Moofie]

What YOU don't seem to comprehend is that these theoretical notions have led to zero exploits.

Like, not any.

So, whether by accident or by design, Classic MacOS is the most secure operating system in common use.

Re:Not surprising, and not bad.

[sokoban]

The funny thing though is that having OS9 installed on a separte bootable partition makes OS X almost completely insecure. Booting into 9 gives the ability to access anything on the OS X volumes.

Re:Not surprising, and not bad.

[clarkcox3]

What YOU don't seem to comprehend is that these theoretical notions have led to zero exploits.

And when did I say that these theoretical notions had led to any exploits? That's right I didn't.

So, whether by accident or by design, Classic MacOS is the most secure operating system in common use.

And when did I say otherwise? Again, I didn't. Hence my comment about reading comprehension.

Re:Not surprising, and not bad.

[commodoresloat]

You do know that there's never been a recorded instance in the wild of a remote compromise of a Classic Mac OS machine, right?

This is not entirely true. Somebody broke into the Mac running WebStar that was hosting the "Crack-a-Mac" contest. But they did it by exploiting a vulnerability in a filemaker script that was running alongside the webserver. But a remote compromise is a remote compromise.

As someone else pointed out, an app like Timbuktu gives you remote back-office-style control over a Mac if you can install the program; I used to have an installer program that installed an invisible version of the Timbuktu on any Mac, making it easy to gain access if you could get physical access to the machine once (or get someone to run the file). More troubling was the application distributed at the time by securemac.com (I forget the name of the app) that opened an obscure port on the mac for a user to telnet into and the user could issue commands via a simple command language. The commands allowed a user to open programs, files, delete files, etc; most things that you could do sitting in front of the machine.

Of course the latter two aren't really exploits as they require a user to actually install them (once). But the lack of a firewall means that if they are installed once they do damage; whereas a firewall would head off the damage they might do (assuming the apps are installed by trickery rather than by a malicious user sitting at the machine, who could also turn off the firewall of course.

But all this is academic -- os9 was more secure "out of the box" because it didn't do anything. Like someone else wrote, you can't telnet into a rock either. Once you make the os do things, like run webservers, or cgi scripts (like the filemaker one that got exploited), or remote access apps, or ftpd (I believe there was a vulnerable ftpd program under os9, actually more like os7.1 or 7.5), etc., you open up the potential for exploits. The same with any services you open up under UNIX. If you run OSX without any network services turned on and with all ports closed, it is just as secure as OS 9 "out of the box" -- and just as useful.

Re:Not surprising, and not bad.

[Twirlip of the Mists]

But a remote compromise is a remote compromise.

I would argue that "crack-a-Mac" was not in the wild. But that's neither here nor there.

Okay, there's been ONE instance of a remote compromise, sort of in the wild, kinda.

As someone else pointed out, an app like Timbuktu gives you remote back-office-style control over a Mac if you can install the program

The Mac running OS 9, just like all computers with network connections, is vulnerable to trojan horses. But a trojan horse is not a remote compromise. By definition, because of the way the Mac worked under OS 9, you had to have physical access to the machine to install the trojan horse, be it a program like Timbuktu or something more insidious.

But all this is academic -- os9 was more secure "out of the box" because it didn't do anything.

All the webmasters at the DoD will be shocked to learn that their web servers don't do anything.

The same with any services you open up under UNIX.

No, NOT the same. Because nothing runs on a Mac under OS 9 unless you explicity enable it. Unlike UNIX, where services run by default out of the box.

How many RPC exploits are there?

Re:Not surprising, and not bad.

[jht]

Here in my home we've got 4 Macs (I've got a TiBook 667 and an iMac 17" 1.25, my wife has an iMac 17" 800, and my toddler has an old iMac DV 450). Neither of mine even have the Classic environment installed. My wife's iMac still has Classic, but she has no Classic apps. Only my son's iMac still actually uses Classic, and that's just because the cruft that is Jumpstart Toddler is a Classic app (that needs 640x480, 256 color resolution to run, no less).

The last Classic application that I ran deliberately was MT Newswatcher - when a Carbonized version of that hit the street I left it behind and haven't looked back since. I still support it for my customers who run it, because MacOS 9.2 and earlier is like riding a bike - you never forget how. But my customers are all starting to either migrate or plan for migration at this point.

Whether folks like it or not, Classic as a boot environment is dead. And if they really feel like they have to have Classic booting capability (instead of just running the environment within OS X), then send me an e-mail - I'll happily sell them my TiBook.

Because that sleek new bad boy AlBook 15" that I've got my eye on? It don't boot Classic, and I don't mind.

Re:Not surprising, and not bad.

[commodoresloat]

All the webmasters at the DoD will be shocked to learn that their web servers don't do anything.

Their web servers weren't "in the box" when they bought OS9. The very first sentence of the article you linked points out that the Army was running WebStar, which certainly wasn't part of OS9, and isn't running "out of the box."

No, NOT the same. Because nothing runs on a Mac under OS 9 unless you explicity enable it. Unlike UNIX, where services run by default out of the box.

Right - including webservers. That was exactly my point. An OS9 (or 8 or 7) out-of-the-box install didn't "do anything," as far as the internet is concerned, so it didn't introduce any vulnerabilities, whereas most UNIX out-of-the-box installations do have network services running. When the Mac is running the same or similar services it is much more vulnerable. It is this -- and not some mysterious design feature of the OS itself -- that makes the Mac more secure -- and less useful -- "out of the box."

Look, I'm a huge MacOS fan, even OS 9,8,7 (actually 8.5.1 was my favorite; it was downhill from there in my opinion until X), but there is no sense in pretending things that aren't true. Mac OS9 was not inherently any more secure than any other OS; it was more secure in practice because all network services were disabled and not too many people used them (and not too many used Macs anyway), so the hunt for Mac security holes was never as vigorous and popular as the hunt for UNIX and Windows exploits. There was a Mac hacking community, and it came up with some pretty clever things (including that remote control program that I wish I could remember the name of), but the few Macs running WebStar were never an attractive enough target for hackers with acres of apache & IIS servers in front of them to play with.

I guess my point is that the OS is only as secure as the services it is running, and that's true of UNIX as well. There is nothing inherently more secure about OS9; UNIX can certainly be installed without turning on vulnerable services but nobody bothers because these machines are meant to be used on the internet.

There were versions of apache for Mac, for example, vulnerable to whatever exploits were around for the version of apache they were based on. And WebStar was a damn fine server, but its big selling point was that it was a freakin' workhorse, not that it was any more secure than apache, except perhaps through obscurity. And either way it says nothing about the inherent security of OS 9. Arguably OS9 is less secure as an OS than UNIX because it treats every user as root.

Don't compare Mac and UNIX "out of the box" because they're in very different boxes. Compare Mac + network services to UNIX "out of the box" or Mac "out of the box" to UNIX with all network services turned off if you actually want to compare them for this purpose.

Re:Not surprising, and not bad.

[Twirlip of the Mists]

Mac OS9 was not inherently any more secure than any other OS

You're spewing a lot of pseudo-theoretical claptrap and ignoring the point: no Mac OS 9 box was ever compromised in the wild. Ever.

the few Macs running WebStar were never an attractive enough target for hackers

Oh, okay. I see. Now we finally get to the heart of your argument. It's the old "Macs aren't more secure; they're just less common" thing.

Bogus then, bogus now.

I guess my point is that the OS is only as secure as the services it is running, and that's true of UNIX as well.

Which is, of course, crap. I mean, it's true, but it's crap. Saying "the system is only as secure as its components" ignores the slap-you-in-the-face fact that no Classic Mac OS system was ever compromised outside of a controlled test.

And WebStar was a damn fine server, but its big selling point was that it was a freakin' workhorse, not that it was any more secure than apache, except perhaps through obscurity.

Bogus.

Arguably OS9 is less secure as an OS than UNIX because it treats every user as root.

Go ahead, make that argument. Then cite all the countless examples of malicious intruders gaining root access to a Mac OS 9 system.

Oh, wait...

Don't compare Mac and UNIX "out of the box" because they're in very different boxes.

Bogus.

Re:Not surprising, and not bad.

[commodoresloat]

I guess you just don't understand my point. Saying there was no example of a compromised system that we know about is irrelevant. You can just as easily make the same claim about BeOS. The point is the OS itself is in no way more secure than UNIX as an OS. You seem to be confusing the OS and the webserver (in the case of old Mac OS you're talking about WebStar, which was not made by Apple, and says nothing about MacOS security, just like apache says nothing about UNIX security). And, as I said, some people did run apache on the Mac, there were at least two versions I remember, probably more, so comparing WebStar vs. apache doesn't say anything about MacOS security at all.

You keep repeating the claim there has been no successful exploit "in the wild" (that you know of) -- which may be true if you ignore the crack-a-mac contest, but it is irrelevant. A mac running insecure services is no more secure than a UNIX box running insecure services, and a Mac that is not connected to a network at all is as secure as a UNIX box not connected to a network. And, again, it is probably less secure, since once the service has been compromised, the attacker now has root access to the Mac. At the OS-level the Mac is probably less secure.

I realize that you think your claim that there has been no successful compromise of os9 is some kind of self-evidently significant argument, but it is basically just interesting data until you suggest some actual hypothesis (other than obscurity) as to what might make OS9 more secure.

My hypothesis is that OS9 was more secure simply because out of the box it didn't do anything (as far as the network is concerned). And the majority of users left it that way. It's a simple hypothesis, and all you can say is "Bogus."

Re:Not surprising, and not bad.

[ezraekman]

You really should read this entire thread; your comments have already been covered. However, I shall recap:

...if you buy a Mac today, it will be patched for all of the recent security bugs you have mentioned...

That wasn't the point. The point was that, regardless of how quickly the issues are resolved, they are issues that NEVER EXISTED in OS 9. There were no holes to plug, ever. It doesn't matter if the problems in OS X are gone now; they WERE present, ARE present on many machines still in use, and ARE NOT guaranteed to be fixed on machines currently being sold, as many were installed, and the boxes factory-sealed before the issues were resolved. I have personally received a brand-new machine that did NOT ship with the latest OS, and I was allowed a free upgrade because of it. Don't make the mistake of thinking that just because the software is available means it is always present. Of such assumptions are catastrophes made.

Even if login is on by default, how secure is OS 9 to an intruder who has physical access to the box? The user data can't be encrypted like it can in OS X.

Also incorrect, and covered by our earlier conversations. Pretty Good Privacy is one of many utilities publicly available that are capable of such encryption, and if memory serves, they are capable of much more intensive and secure encryption than OS X is. The only difference is whether or not it's "built-in" to the OS. Regardless, regulating physical access to a machine was not the type of security issues that I meant, and I've already clarified that.

What about someone who wants to share their home directory? Is OS 9 still more secure than the same user sharing files in OS X? I am willing to bet not.

See above.

Finally, this is a really lame discussion because with even the most minor and simple user intervention (i.e. one click system prefs like turning on the firewall, enabling automatic security updates, switching file secure on, etc.) OS X is by far more secure than OS 9 by all standards. OS 9 was completely unstable besides all of this... OS 9 is secure mostly because of obscurity. It is dated and therefore will lack modern operating system exploits.

By your argument a modern blender has a more secure computer inside because it lacks any sort of network interface! Face it, OS X is better than OS 9 in every single respect including security.

Wrong, wrong, WRONG! OS 9 HAS a network interface. Several, actually. And they were, and are secure. I challenge you to show me a way that, with or without a firewall installed, you can hack into Mac OS X. Found a few? Good! Now try to find one for OS 9. Not a vulnerability in an OS 9-compatible app, but in the OPERATING SYSTEM. No luck? There's a reason for that. It's called being secure, and it has been universally recognized. You can make all the arguments you want about how OS X has more services and therefore more vulnerabilities, but again, that was not my point. My point is that, without installing updates, without changing defaults, there's one box you can hack into, and one you can't. The one that's got vulnerabilities is OS X. It's as simple as that.

I PREFER OS X. I use it daily. I am not trying to start a holy war here. You can take it personally if you want, but I've backed my statements up with links, relevant data, and verifiable facts. I use OS X, the same as you. The difference is that I am not in denial about its shortcomings, however few, and that I'm open to education, should I be presented with a legitimate argument. Are you?

Re:Not surprising, and not bad.

[Twirlip of the Mists]

Saying there was no example of a compromised system that we know about is irrelevant.

No, it's not.

You can just as easily make the same claim about BeOS.

Then go right ahead!

You seem to be confusing the OS and the webserver

I'm not *confusing* them. I'm just not bothering to draw an arbitrary distinction between them for purposes of weasling out of an argument.

You keep repeating the claim there has been no successful exploit "in the wild" (that you know of) -- which may be true if you ignore the crack-a-mac contest, but it is irrelevant.

No, it's not. It's the only point that's relevant to this discussion: no Mac running classic Mac OS has ever been hacked into. That means a Mac running the classic Mac OS is a very secure platform indeed.

And, again, it is probably less secure, since once the service has been compromised, the attacker now has root access to the Mac.

No OS 9 Mac has ever been compromised. You're talking about the consequences of something that has never, ever happened, ever. You really don't realize how foolish this makes you sound? You're ignoring the fact that the lack of a command shell basically makes running arbitrary commands remotely a complete impossibility on a classic Mac. You're saying "if it happened, it would suck" while ignoring the fact that it cannot happen.

It's a simple hypothesis, and all you can say is "Bogus."

Was I unclear? Okay, let me use more words, then: "demonstrably untrue, and therefore laughable in the extreme."

Re:Not surprising, and not bad.

[Eowaennor]

Check out MudWalker http://mudwalker.cubik.org. Its open-source, cocoa native, and even provides an API to write your own plugins.
I have even written my own mudmaster/zmud compatible chat plugin with MudWalker. Also with its scriptability in Lua (and any other scripting language you wish to write an interpreter for), MudWalker is far ahead of Rapscallion.

Re:Not surprising, and not bad.

[commodoresloat]

I'm not *confusing* them. I'm just not bothering to draw an arbitrary distinction between them for purposes of weasling out of an argument.

It's not an arbitrary distinction. You buy the OS and webserver separately, from different companies. Most people who run the OS never buy the webserver. They are different products. You could just as easily attribute all Word Macro viruses to the MacOS and refuse to draw an arbitrary distinction between the OS and the word processer.

No, it's not. It's the only point that's relevant to this discussion: no Mac running classic Mac OS has ever been hacked into. That means a Mac running the classic Mac OS is a very secure platform indeed.

No. It means no Mac running Classic has ever been hacked into. Period. Any other statement is a hypothesis, which is perfectly acceptable, but I offered a much more credible hypothesis. Your hypothesis is circular. What is it about the MacOS that you think makes it more secure?

You're ignoring the fact that the lack of a command shell basically makes running arbitrary commands remotely a complete impossibility on a classic Mac. You're saying "if it happened, it would suck" while ignoring the fact that it cannot happen.

The equivalent of a command shell can be installed on a Mac; I gave you two examples in my first post in this discussion. The command shell is harder to separate from the OS itself than the webserver, perhaps, from the user's perspective, but from the perspective of the computer OS I don't see why the command shell is different from the GUI. It's a way of inputting commands to the computer; perhaps it is easier for most hackers to type commands from memory than to interact with the computer through a series of arcane mouse movements, but if I am controlling a computer through a program like Timbuktu that computer is just as owned as if I was doing it from a $ prompt. More so, in fact, because for me, like most Mac users, the mouse movements are way more intuitive than the command prompt. If this is the sole reason you think OS9 was safer, you might have mentioned it earlier in this discussion. And it's not a good reason -- Timbuktu, while not a shell, is a way of running commands remotely. Apple Remote Access, and the file sharing and program linking built into the OS also give one the ability to execute commands remotely. And the program whose name I can't remember that I mentioned earlier was itself a command shell you could install that used AppleScript (I believe) to give commands to other programs. You seem to think that such programs don't exist on a Mac, or to think that if they do exist, they should not be considered part of MacOS security assessments, while similar programs on UNIX should be considered while making assessments about UNIX security.

The point is that compromising the system once -- by tricking someone into running a program that installs invisible extensions for example (something that was easily accomplished in the OS 9 days) -- leaves the system far more vulnerable than compromising a UNIX (or OSX) system with the same type of exploit. (And yes, I realize that the hard part, getting the program on the machine, is accomplished through social engineering in the above example. But it's the same on both systems. And if you run a vulnerable webserver on either system, the same kind of exploit works on both systems (regardless of there being no examples "in the wild") -- the architecture difference between an exploit on apache for unix and the same exploit for apache on mac is probably not a huge programming hurdle for the hacker, and whatever hurdle it is says nothing about the inherent security of not having a shell in the OS.

But my point is obvious, in the end, and it's a silly debate. I'm only pointing out for the sake of argument a reason why OS9 might be considered less secure -- in the end, the OS9 model (the user has access to everything) has benefits that justifies that approach, whereas the OSX/UNIX model has other benefits.

Re:Not surprising, and not bad.

[Blakey Rat]

Rapscallion can display triggers in palettes allowing you to trigger them at any time or easily turn them on or off without having to open up dialog boxes. No other MUD client I've seen is capable of that. It's not hard, they're just too lazy to implement it.

Re:Not surprising, and not bad.

[fr0dicus]

Security? Who needs rock-like security when the damn thing hacks and crashes itself?

Speculation

[Goo.cc]

"The PowerMac G4 had continued to be in production largely for users of Mac OS 9"

I believe that statement is mostly speculation. There are people, like myself, who need a low cost Mac that doesn't saddle them with a built in monitor. I have a single processor 1.25ghz G4 with 2 gigabytes of RAM and I am totally happy with it.

Hopefully, Apple will one day offer something like the eMac without a built in monitor.

Re:Speculation

[HTH NE1]

And I've seriously considered getting one due to its internal drive storage capacity (4 hard drives, two optical drives). I've already modded the internals of my B&W G3, externalizing the power switch box, snapping out its back support, and attaching a 4-drive PC bay vertically on the drive tray.

If I knew I could put my B&W G3's motherboard in one of those G4 cases, I would order a case as a replacement part (if they still sell them).

Re:Speculation

[javax]

I believe there are plenty of Artists and other non-techfreaking users out there who are afraid of OS-X. They stay with what they know and what supports the application they use for years now.
Nerds like us get the most recent OS version of whatever gets thrown at us. We even buy stuff like the BeBox or the new Amiga, that dont have any real apps.

Re:Speculation

[squiggleslash]

Nope, not speculation. Oh sure, people may have bought the PM G4 for other reasons, but Apple's primary reason for continuing to sell it was that they'd promised to continue to support (and sell hardware capable of running) Mac OS 9 until this year.

The PowerMac G4 is/was the last product in their line that ran Mac OS 9. Everything else they currently sell is incapable of running any of Apple's operating systems pre-OS X.

Re:Speculation

[beattie]

Hopefully, Apple will one day offer something like the eMac without a built in monitor.

They did and it was called "the cube."

Re:Speculation

[fr0dicus]

The PowerMac G4 is/was the last product in their line that ran Mac OS 9. Everything else they currently sell is incapable of running any of Apple's operating systems pre-OS X.

Nice spin. I believe they're probably more than capable though. I think you meant "None of Apple's operating system pre-OS X are capable of running on everything else they currently sell".

Re:Speculation

[kitzilla]

I think you're right. Pro graphics programs have a daunting learning curve. Most professional design-types work incredibly hard, and would rather invest their time generating work and money than learning new software.

A wild concept, huh: people actually use their computers for WORK. ;-)

The OS X phobes will eventually have to make the move. In the end, they'll appreciate the additional productivity of faster hardware and a more stable OS. But I understand their reluctance to switch gears.

Re:Speculation

[squiggleslash]

I'm trying to work out what you mean by this. Surely both comments are identical in meaning or is there an emphasis point I'm missing?

INCORRECT! Dual G4s still to be made

[sribe]

Apple's actual quote is:

The single 1.25 GHz Power Mac G4, with suggested retail price of $1,299 (US), will no longer be in production and is available for purchase while supplies last through the Apple Store (www.apple.com), at Apple's retail stores and Apple Authorized Resellers.

This is only the low-end of 3 configurations, leaving both dual-processor G4s still in production.

Re:INCORRECT! Dual G4s still to be made

[funkdid]

Whoops, ignore my post "Dualies". Damn /. lag.

Re:INCORRECT! Dual G4s still to be made

[suyashs]

I bet that if Apple doesn't sell these, they will label them Limited Editions or something, jack up the price $200 and get people who bought the Virginia Tech G5s to buy these as well...

Re:INCORRECT! Dual G4s still to be made

[Fuzzle]

Macmall bought all those, and were the ones seling them as limited edition, not Apple.

Re:INCORRECT! Dual G4s still to be made

[suyashs]

Oh, I thought that Apple sold them through MacMall...I wasn't aware of MacMall buying all of them from Apple to resell...thanks for the correction...

Re:INCORRECT! Dual G4s still to be made

[sribe]

Where are you? Year 2002?

Apple hasn't made or sold Dual G4 machines since the G5 was introduced. Apple still sold one configuration of G4, a single 1.25Ghz unit, so some people could still boot OS 9. Now they are discontinuing this unit and the only PowerMacs sold will be G5 units.

Well, you're just plain wrong. Apple never stopped selling dual-processor G4s. I don't know where you think you got your information, but just go to the Apple Store and look, they're still listed there today, as they have been, continuously, since their introduction.

So to address your question: I'm in the year 2004. It appears however that you might be lost in some alternate dimension where up is down and so on ;-)

Re:Good riddance!

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously though, when are we gonna see a G5 powerbook?

They're still trying to figure out how to fit liquid cooling and 9 40mm high flow fans into a laptop form factor. The alternative is to burn your penis off. There may be a female G5 laptop soon though as this isn't an issue.

Dualies!

[funkdid]

Every now and again Apple offers it's Power Mac line in Dual only configs. (Usually when they haven't had a speed boost to offer in awhile). I always thought that, THAT was the way to go. Maybe it's cause I'm a Mac zealot, but there's something hardcore about seeing a model that is only offered in a Dual Processor config.

I know a lot of people that were hoping dual G4s would come down in price when the G5s came out. I think it would be nice to have a low-end *upgradeable* (not iMac or eMac) tower offering from Apple. Perhaps the G4 could have filled that niche. Dual G4s in a mini tower maybe, plus the G5 powermac. Kind of like the iBook Vs. Powerbook. (Oh yeah there isn't much difference between them now.)

I know, I know. Apple needs to sell G5s in order for IBM to make faster ones, cheaper ones etc. Still an only dual processor offering from Apple would be neat.

Re:Dualies!

[Twirlip of the Mists]

For most people, a dual CPU offers no real advantage.

Boy, is that ever not true.

Remember, we're talking about Mac OS X here. Mac OS X uses a task model that's very similar to the UNIX model you're probably familiar with. (It's Mach, not UNIX, but the gist is the same.) That means there's support for dual processors at the thread level, sure, but there's also support at the process level.

Right now, on the G4 I'm using to type this, I have 69 processes running. Not much: just the base OS, Safari, Mail, iChat, and iTunes. But on my machine, whatever task is next in the run queue gets run on whichever processor is free. (Yes, there's processor affinity. That's not important right now.)

The net result is that the amount of time a given process is runnable but not running is reduced, because I've got two, two, two Macs in one.

Bottom line? My Mac is faster and more responsive than an equivalent single-processor Mac. Not just sometimes, but always.

Two processors are better than one, period.

remember, the new machines are 4 months late because the CPU has hard to get

First, WTF? Please don't pull things like "4 months late" out of your butt and expect to be taken seriously. You haven't seen Apple's product release roadmaps. You don't know what you're talking about.

And secondly, the 2.5 GHz G5 isn't hard to get; it's hard to MAKE. IBM had lots of problems with their 90 nm fab process. It's not like supplies were constrained. The suckers just weren't coming out of the plant.

Re:Dualies!

[harlows_monkeys]

First, WTF? Please don't pull things like "4 months late" out of your butt and expect to be taken seriously. You haven't seen Apple's product release roadmaps. You don't know what you're talking about.

I didn't pull it out of my butt. I pulled it out of what Apple said in their conference call explaining their first quarter results. Apple says that these machines were supposed to be out at the end of February, but were delayed because of CPU availability.

Re:Dualies!

[Twirlip of the Mists]

Ooops. I stand corrected. My bad. (In my own defense, pretty much everybody who says anything like "they're 4 months late" just fucking made it up. You're the exception.)

Re:Dualies!

[daviddennis]

When Final Cut Pro 3 came out, I was running a 450mhz dual processor G4. I visited the Apple Store to check it out, and I found that rendering on a single processor 867 killed the machine.

I was disappointed since I waas hoping to at least surf the web while rendering as a major benefit of MacOS X. (Previous versions of Final Cut Pro were MacOS 9 only). So it was with a heavy heart that I bought back my shiny new upgrade and installed it on my dual 450.

Worked like a charm. No problem multi-tasking at all during rendering. So in some cases, a dual 450 outperforms a single 867. I would never buy a single-processor PowerMac.

D

Re:Dualies!

[johansch]

The CPU usage of a modern desktop UI is very burst-like. These bursts are typically triggered by user activity. Most of the the time, the system is idling. Because these bursts seldom overlap, you usually don't that much performance by having two CPUs.

Servers, on the other hand...

Re:Dualies!

[Twirlip of the Mists]

Most of the the time, the system is idling.

Wrongo. If you get up and walk away, maybe, but not if you're actually, you know, USING your computer.

Whether my computer is faster than a single-processor equivalent when both are doing nothing is a question I've never bothered to ponder.

Re:Dualies!

[soundsop]

Two processors are better than one, period.

Very true. To go off on a tangent...

I guess what confuses people is that there is a lot of research into trying to make two processor systems exactly twice as fast as a single processor system. Keep in mind this is for a single application. When a single application (or process) is spread across multiple CPUs, the CPUs often must communicate information to complete the computation. The cost of this cross-CPU communication is high. A single CPU system, however, has no communication bottleneck. Thus the performance of a 2-CPU system is often much less that twice that of the single CPU system--but always better than just one processor as noted by the parent posting.

But if we are running multiple, independent applications/processes, then there's little problem. There is no need for communication between unrelated processes. So there's no communication bottleneck. If you run an environment with computation-intensive applications that are indepedent, you will get twice the performance* with a 2-CPU system versus a single CPU system.

*I have simplified the situation. There is indeed overhead, but this is minor compared to parallelizing a single application/process.

Two processors are better than one, period.

...and in some cases, two processors are twice as good as single processor.

Sorry for adding to a sentence that ends with the word period. But I just can't help it, period.

Re:Dualies!

[z-kungfu]

it was the L3 cash that made the 867 faster....

Re:Dualies!

[Watcher]

That really depends on what you mean by "using". For example, if you're just doing general work (web browsing, office, coding (compiling excepted), so on), your computer is spending most of the time idle waiting for you to do something. Take a look at your processor load sometime-you're only seeing peaks if a program is really having to work on something. Most of the time, the software that hits 1.0 load is compilers, video rendering tools, and games-there's other stuff, but that's what I do day to day that punches a 1.0 load. Other than that, you won't see your processors really pegged. I have a dual G5 at home, and I've really noticed a difference in performance-everything is much snappier, and you don't notice performance hitches as much if you have a program that is hammering one of the CPUs (video rendering and CD ripping being the big ones here-games will as well, but you don't notice that so much because when you're playing a game that's all you're doing on the box). I have friends who have dual intel boxes, and just for kicks we've pulled a processor to see what the performance difference is, and its almost night and day in windows. All of the normal pauses you are used to seeing when one program is busy thinking rarely show up with two processors.

Dual processors are worth it. If it weren't so damned expensive on the intel/amd side, I'd have a dual PC box as well. The thing is that games are about the only reason I still have a PC, and its a rare day when you find a game that makes use of multiple processors.

Re:Dualies!

[Twirlip of the Mists]

For example, if you're just doing general work (web browsing, office, coding (compiling excepted), so on), your computer is spending most of the time idle waiting for you to do something.

1993 called. They want their definition of "general work" back.

"General work" includes audio and video playback, the manipulation of tons of high-resolution bitmaps, checking for email periodically, processing both incoming and outgoing network traffic, regular interrupts for scheduling reminders, managing incoming and outgoing cell phone calls (God, how did we live before Bluetooth?), synchronizing personal databases, et cetera.

Your computer is doing a LOT while you're just sitting there zoning out.

Unless you aren't really using it for anything, of course. In which case you wasted a lot of money on it.

Re:Dualies!

[Watcher]

I do all of the above and then some, and I rarely notice the performance hitches on a dual processor like I would on a single-just simple stuff like switching windows actually happens smoothly, unlike on a single where you usually end up sitting there waiting for the program to wake up and realize you want something done. Even so, most of the time your computer is sitting there waiting for you to do something-most of the tasks you mention are low impact on modern hardware. Audio/video playback? I almost never see a tick on the processor when I'm doing that, even with HD stuff, because in most systems there is hardware available to do the decoding/playback work. Checking network traffic? Only on a very high traffic connection will you see any kind of CPU load-look at your typical server; I do some pretty serious stress tests on the network software I write and I usually saturate the network bandwidth before I get even one processor near half load (100 Mbit, in case you care-we haven't started working on high bandwidth yet, since none of our customers care). Checking email is a really low impact operation and only happens every few minutes, unless you're in the habit of receiving multi-meg emails on a regular basis (and even that only causes a momentary sputter on current boxes). Unless you're doing something seriously compulationally intensive (and editing a very high resolution image certainly would count), most of the time computers are so fast now that they spend a lot of time waiting, even if it seems like they're doing a hell of a lot.

Re:Good riddance!

[rebeka thomas]

Seriously though, when are we gonna see a G5 powerbook?

When they can get the heat down, which is a long way away. Don't hold your breath waiting for it.

All apple have done here is added water cooling to overclocked older G5s. Still no 90nm process chips in the powermacs. And I can see in 12 months thousands of these things failing when the water clogs up the radiator.

If I were forced to use one of these I'd rip out that system and replace it with a correct phase change cooling with fans that can pump a decent amount of air

Not surprising

[Hythlodaeus]

Apple has always been certain not to offer any "new world" Macs in a tower case for less than $2000. It seems like a bad move, discouraging people from switiching into Apples, but at least they are consistent. I would have bought an Apple by now if they kept selling a Power Mac a generation or two behind in the $1000 range, but I will never buy the eMac/iMac style computers they offer for that price segment.

Re:Not surprising

[adrew]

FWIW, EDU/student pricing on the base dual 1.8 is $1799.

Re:Not surprising

[TheRaven64]

Have you tried looking on eBay? There are usually a lot of used Macs and while they may not be the fastest out there are usually a lot that are fast and cheap enough to give you a feel of the system (I know people who are using 500MHz iBooks as their primary system, in spite of owning multi-GHz Athlon systems).

Re:Not surprising

[System.out.println()]

Many third-party Apple vendors sell older models. I know of a few websites you can get them - ebay and smalldog come to mind.

Re:Good riddance!

[Smurf]

Still no 90nm process chips in the powermacs.

No, no. The new PowerMacs are using 90 nm process G5s.

And to the people that responded saying that the system is not liquid cooled, well, you are wrong. (Although you are right in that the liquid isn't water). Apple didn't use a heat pipe. In heat pipes the liquid is evaporated (taking the heat away) and the resulting vapor is condensed by releasing the heat to the outside. The fluid motion is produced passively. In Apple's design apparently the fluid is always in liquid state and is actively pumped (controlled by the processor).

(Credit goes to TamMan2000 for the finding the last link and providing some info.)

Re:Good riddance!

[switcha]

Seriously though, when are we gonna see a G5 powerbook?

Right after the iPod supports Ogg. ;)

Re:Good riddance!

[Twirlip of the Mists]

This is, far and away, the stupidest subject of rumor I've ever heard.

This isn't a case in which Apple could build them (faster G5's, and a laptop with a G5 in it) if they wanted and they're just holding out for a business case. And this isn't a case where they're making incremental improvements to the design to get it just right.

Both a 3 GHz G5 and a laptop with a G5 in it are TECHNICAL IMPOSSIBILITIES at this time.

When they cease to be impossible, Apple will make them.

This whole "they'll be announced in January" thing is crap. Utter, utter crap. It's not a rumor. It's just a guess.

Whither the iMac?

[Zhe Mappel]

To summarize the main points of the Mac Central piece (from which /.'s factoid is taken):

The G5 heatsink is too big to put in a laptop

The G5 heatsink is too big to put in an iMac

Putting the big G5 heatsink anwhere but inside a Power Mac is a "heck of a challenge," according to an Apple marketing director

But we have also heard, in the past week, that the G4 iMac is no longer being shipped to Apple stores. So, is Apple just being coy here? Or is the iMac line going into hibernation?

Re:Whither the iMac?

[lethe1001]

What are you talking about? When did anyone say that they were no longer shipping the G4 iMac?

They stopped production of the G4 powermac, but the G4 iMac is still around

Re:Whither the iMac?

[Analog Penguin]

I haven't heard anything about the G4 iMac EOL (link?), but even if it's true, that doesn't necessarily mean G5. They could just be updating the thing with faster G4s, more memory and disk space, etc. Dualie G4 iMacs would be cool, especially given their current slow speed (1.25 Ghz? yuck), but I wouldn't count on G5 iMacs just yet. My brother has a G5, and that thing runs damn hot. I can't imagine putting it into an iMac case without a major redesign, and considering how much trouble they're having keeping up with tower production, it just seems unlikely that we're there yet.

Consider also that for a while, Apple had "pro" processors and "consumer" processors--G3 iMacs and iBooks, G4 towers and Powerbooks. I doubt we'll be seeing G5s in the iMac before the Powerbook, at the very least.

Re:Whither the iMac?

[Zhe Mappel]

Here's my source for the iMac G4 EOL claim. Granted, it's only a rumor; I should have been more specific about that.

http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=476

In short, Apple Insider claims that Apple "has told several resellers not to expect any further shipments of its iMac G4" and that "iMac G4 inventory is nearly depleted, and it appears that manufacturing of the entire line has halted."

Quite apart from whether that is true, your point about G5 heat is well taken. This leads me to wonder whether the rumored metalic case redesign will turn the iMac's base itself (or some portion of it) into a large heatsink. Obviously allowing for safety limitations--after all, you can't have a big waffle iron on your desk--this might offer an alternative to a larger case. Passive cooling alone wouldn't be enough, so fan noise would be another tricky problem to solve.

Another partial solution to heat and size is an exterior, fanless PSU. Shuttle has started offering these with its very successful line of small form factor PCs. Here's a review:

http://www.silentpcreview.com/article139-page1.htm l

Re:Whither the iMac?

[ksheff]

So they could just make a laptop-like power cable for the next gen iMac, and then use a low clock speed (1.6-1.8M) G5 w/ the heat pipe cooling?

Re:Whither the iMac?

[TheRaven64]

slow speed (1.25 Ghz? yuck),

Perhaps you could enlighten me as to what you do that needs more than 1.25GHz? I do a lot of coding and video editing on my 1.25GHz PowerBook. The incremental build features in XCode means that it spends hardly any time compiling. I sometimes have to wait for a few seconds while it renders large sequences of effects in Final Cut Express, but not very often (most things can be done in realtime).

This is a serious question. I'd really like to be able to justify buying myself a G5 system.

Re:Whither the iMac?

[rjstanford]

Obviously allowing for safety limitations--after all, you can't have a big waffle iron on your desk

I beg to differ. For an extended period of time when I was trying to find time to fix it, I did indeed have a big waffle iron on my desk. Even made the occasional waffle with it.

Re:Whither the iMac?

[mr_tap]

I have heard on a mailing list that I am subscribed to (infinite loop) that the current iMac cannot be ordered anymore.

Re:Whither the iMac?

[Have Blue]

It wouldn't be the first time Apple used an external PSU either- the Cube had a power brick because it wouldn't fit in the case.

Re:Whither the iMac?

[Analog Penguin]

I suppose now that you bring it up, 1.25 Ghz isn't too shabby, but also remember that the iMacs don't have nearly as much L2 cache (and no L3 at all), and the graphics card is weaker (and non-upgradeable). I know it doesn't seem like much, but I can tell you from personal experience that the difference is noticeable, even when compared to a 1.25 Ghz G4 tower. And the G5 tower is just unbelievably fast--I can't imagine what it'll be like when the software becomes optimized for it.

Re:Good riddance!

[Twirlip of the Mists]

Your guessing.

No, he's quoting. "Mac OS X dynamically adjusts the flow of the fluid and the speed of the fans based on temperature." How can you adjust the flow in a system that lacks any mechanism to regulate the flow?

The Apple diagram you linked to shows no pump.

LOL. The "diagram" is an illustration from a marketing brochure. You might as well say, "The diagram shows no floor. Therefore, the G5 floats unsupported above your desk."

This is hardly innovation.

So?

Yeah, an LC for the new millenium...

[GrahamCox]

"Hopefully, Apple will one day offer something like the eMac without a built in monitor" I agree - an LC style (physically) machine with a 1.5GHz G4, etc would be great. Make a great headless home server and could be very low cost. --Graham

Perhaps instead . . .

[erikharrison]

we should say OS 9 is dead. The death of an entire OS is more notable than the change from 32 to 64 bit.

Re:Perhaps instead . . .

[krray]

I not so sure I agree. OS 8, 7 and so forth are all "dead" ... and have been for a while. For me there was little or no interest in OS 9 for about the same reason as my interest level in Windows. Stability. Too many instances (OS 9) where I saw a single application bring the whole house of cards down (reboot).

OS X is THE reason I use a Mac mixed with my Linux world. That is, perhaps, notable point number one. Have you compared Linux running 64 bit compared to 32? Wow. If you think OS X is nice today, on a G5, just wait until the core OS and all the various applications show up with 64 bit capabilities where applicable. It'll raise the bar yet again with no hardware purchases needed for those lucky G5 owners. Of course the current G4 line will continue to work with the 32 bit version which Apple seems to have the ability to keep making faster and better. +90% of the updates from them I've been tickled with. OTOH +90% of the updates from that other company just scare me...

Re:Good riddance!

[djupedal]

How can you adjust the flow in a system that lacks any mechanism to regulate the flow?

Wow...did you ever fall for a marketing come-on...think for a second and you'll realize how easy it is.

The hotter the temp, the faster the fluid moves thru the Burnoulli tube....no mechanicals involved. When it is cold it doesn't move at all...no moving parts - when it's hot...hey! It moves!! :)

Just like the copper heatsink on the 1.24 GHz G4's....the first 'liquid cooled Mac' !

The marketing guys took liberty with the word 'dynamically' and I'll give you a break and not poke fun. Unless you argue, and then it's "everybody point and laugh at TOTMs! hjehehe!!!"

Re:Good riddance!

[falcon5768]

hmmm I wonder.... does this liquidcooled system have anything in common with THIS

if so acourding to this it is a pump, thus proving you wrong.... something tells me based on how old the article is it most likely is this watercooling setup.

Re:Good riddance!

[Trillan]

I'd put money on 3rd quarter 2005 or later.

Re:Good riddance!

[TheRaven64]

Not entirely. All Apple (should) need to build a G5 powerbook is for IBM to sort out the yields on PPC970FXs. Presumably they've kept a couple of dozen of them back from the XServe G5s to go to their R&D division. I wouldn't be surprised if they already have a working G5 powerbook design (the 970FX is electrically compatible with the 970, so they could have been working on one for over a year), but without sufficient quantities of 970FXs they can't launch them. January is roughly when IBM are expected to get their act together, so this seems entirely feasible.

Oh, and the exact same problem exists for 3GHz G5s. The current ones still use the 130nm 970, which was expected to be phased out in favour of the lower power and higher speed 90nm 970FX by now.

Mobo Fries

[lxt]

I guess he means when the "motherboard fries". Still, if your Mac's still under warrenty, of course Apple would replace it. If it's not, that's your problem. It wouldn't be any different with a PC.

Re:Mobo Fries

[FaasNat]

You sure it's not the new low carb ones being offered by McDonalds?

Re:Mobo Fries

[RzUpAnmsCwrds]

"I guess he means when the "motherboard fries". Still, if your Mac's still under warrenty, of course Apple would replace it. If it's not, that's your problem. It wouldn't be any different with a PC."

Except that you could buy a new PC that's 100% compatible with your old system.

You can't do that with a Mac.

Re:Mobo Fries

[bhtooefr]

I CAN buy a new Alienware (or build my own system) with an FX-53, and throw FreeDOS on it. I may have to install my old SB card, and maybe even an older graphics card, but it will work.

Basilisk II

[mccalli]

The biggest problem I have (and why I'm staying on OS9, at least on one machine) is the gigantic stack of kids games, all written in the mid to late '90s, that my kids love.

You might want to look at the Basilisk II port for OS X. It will emulate an old machine, and you can run up to System 8 I believe (never ran System 8 myself - I ducked out of Macs at 7.5.5 and came back in at Jaguar).

Cheers,
Ian

But Virtual PC doesn't run on the G5 yet!

[Anonymous Coward]

By discontinuing the G4 before Microsoft has released VirtualPC for the G5, isn't Apple telling a lot of people that it doesn't want their business?

Anyone who relies on a Windows-only product, and who could previously accommodate that need on a G4 running Virtual PC, will in the future need to buy a Windows PC.

Unless Apple is about to announce at WWDC its own G4-friendly Windows emulation, this could be a MAJOR step backwards for Apple among cross-platform users who prefer Apple but NEED access to Windows applications from time to time.

Re:But Virtual PC doesn't run on the G5 yet!

[Bombcar]

Or this could be a shot across the bow of Microsoft, which they hope will force them to hurry up with the G5 Virtual PC.

After all, you can still get G4 computers.....

but they would be a laptop.....

Re:But Virtual PC doesn't run on the G5 yet!

[Raptor CK]

Erm... if they needed to do Windows emulation for so long, wouldn't they already have a G4?

It's not like the G4s out there are suddenly going to forget how to run VPC, and by the time Apple runs out of G4 stock, the G5 version of VPC may very well be out.

Honestly, if MS can't be asked to sell a few more Windows licenses for a system they'll never port to, then there's something pretty silly going on. (Remember, for most VPC users, it's a way to run Windows. MS wins.)

Re:But Virtual PC doesn't run on the G5 yet!

[confused one]

there's a darwine project (check sourceforge) which is trying to port wine to darwin. It's not done yet (still in alpha stage).

Classicurity

[thatguywhoiam]

You'd better back the hell off OS 9, man. As far as network security goes, it's top of the list.

Best quote I've ever heard about the state of Classic Mac OS security, from a friend who really knows his shit:

"Sure, you're right, I can't break into OS 9. But I can't telnet into a fucking rock now, either, can I?"

True story.

Good Riddance again

[Anonymous Coward]

The MDD is noisy, badly designed and too small to fit everything in. I 'upgraded' from an Upgraded Sawtooth (running a Dual 500MHz) to a Dual 867MHz MDD - and don't like it at all.

Much more noisy, inexplicable airflow design. Much more crowded too.

I'm selling it too and sticking to my PowerBook. Bring on the Rev C or D G5s - I am buying one as soon as PCI Express filters down to the low end model.

doc

Re:Good riddance!

[MoneyT]

Heat.

The G5 puts out a decent amount of it. And it's great that they could cram it into an XServe. But the Xserve is about an inch and a half thicker, and can have 3 very loud very fast fans running to cool it off (sorry, Xserves just aren't quiet). By contrast, people bitch and moan about the low hum that comes from their powerbooks when the fan kicks in. So while it may be possible to cram a g5 into a powerbook, it isn't possible to release a G5 powerbook until stylisticaly and operationaly it runs better than the current powerbooks.

Re:Good riddance!

[HoserHead]

Actually, it looks a whole lot like the G5s used in the new Power Mac are 90 nm.

Re:Good riddance!

[iMacGuy]

The 2.5 GHz G5 is a 970FX.

I'd believe that

[alexhmit01]

Got an AWESOME deal on two iMacs from the previous generation that they were basically giving away at the Apple Store. They wouldn't be priced that low unless they were seriously trying to move the product.

I'd expect another G4 rev to the iMac, but who knows.

I hope I can score

[WormholeFiend]

a G4 case for cheap... would be great box to mod.

Re:Good riddance!

[Smurf]

Come on, it's the G5 info link in the PowerMac section of the Apple website! It specifically says:

Over 58 million, thanks to IBM's sophisticated process technology that builds them just 90 nanometers wide. Such superior technology developments turbo-charge the G5 processor to speeds of up to 2.5GHz.

(They are referring to the 2.5 GHz G5 in the top of the line PowerMac).

If you want further proof, take a look at either the PowerMac White Paper or the Technology and Performance Overview. (Both are linked from the PowerMac main page).

Re:Good riddance!

[rebeka thomas]

The marketing guys took liberty with the word 'dynamically' and I'll give you a break and not poke fun. Unless you argue, and then it's "everybody point and laugh at TOTMs! hjehehe!!!"

So you wish to deny the obvious inclusion of a pump in the G5 liquid cooling system, and laugh at anyone who sees it?

I think it's time to laugh at djupedal for being blind to the obvious. The G5 cooling system has a pump. The pump is controlled by OSX. It is not a simple heat pipe.

Just like the copper heatsink on the 1.24 GHz G4's....the first 'liquid cooled Mac' !

No, nothing like a heat pipe. Heat pipes ARE still used in the new G5s for cache ram, but cache ram is not CPU.

Unless you wish to somehow decide to laugh at people who think cache ram is not cpu, and make more false claims.

Re:Apple could build a G5 powerbook now.

[Twirlip of the Mists]

The CPU isn't the issue. The issue is the system controller. In the Power Mac G5, the system controller is an Apple-designed, IBM-fabbed ASIC that connects all the components of the system via HyperTransport. It's about half the size of a pop-tart and dissipates enough heat to keep your toes nice and toasty-warm.

Re:Good riddance!

[bhtooefr]

(Clarifying Smurf's reply to you)

That article shows that the G5 is currently made on a 90nm process. Apple's marketing name for the IBM PPC 970/970FX is G5. IBM can't use G5 - they have to use PPC 970FX. If Apple says the G5 is 90nm, it's the G5 used in an Apple computer.

Re:Apple could build a G5 powerbook now.

[Twirlip of the Mists]

Go read up on closed-loop cold-plate technology.

Re:Good riddance!

[Smurf]

Here you will find a photograph and In here the schematics of the cooling system used.

And yes, there is a pump in there. So 'dynamically' is not a mere buzzword in this case. And no, it's not a simple heat pipe.

Oh, and it's not Burnoulli tube, but Bernoulli tube.

Now, did you really need to be that rude with someone only because he had a different opinion (even if you forget the fact that he was actually right and you wrong)?

Re:Good riddance!

[Smurf]

Just in case someone is still wondering, on this article Apple's senior director of desktop product marketing confirms that (in at least the 2.5 GHz version) "The processor was built using the 90-nanometer process."

Re:Good riddance!

[djupedal]

did you really need to be that rude with someone

yawn....