h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

G3 and later PowerPC you mean, yeah, at least for now. The fact that it forces one to buy Apple's hardware can be annoying at times, but that's their prerogative I suppose.

I like Win2k actually, for its feature set. I still get annoyed by many of its interface paradigms, but it's certainly liveable. I'm sure a good GUI on top of Unix could at least reach the usability of Win2k. Mac OS X is that, but again you're limited to G3 and later Apple hardware. So the potential is still there for someone to develop a decent GUI for Unix/Linux on other processor architectures.

This has turned out to be a very civilised thread. How lovely to see so much support for my beloved Macintosh.

Well, it often starts with having civilized *Mac* users. It's surprising how many of our fellow Mac users are the first to raise their voice and point fingers in such a discussion. Mac users are a vocal bunch for sure, and also tend to be a close-net community who help one another, that's true. But yes, it has indeed been civil. Very cool. When you stick to realistic impressions (as in neither one is vastly superior to the other most of the time) then you can usually have a decent discussion about the merits and drawbacks of each.

WRONGGGGGGG!
All wrong,because the AMIGA is still the best,most intuitive OS
(It's even called Intuition) The first true mainframe-on a desk.
True multi-tasking when the pc was clutching at 8bits....
Watch out for AmigaOne next year,or u Linux peeps can run the
devbox software.
8^D Amigo

Well, we *were* having a fairly civilized discussion. That's the sort of attitude that turns these sort of discussions into mud-slinging screamfests. And the worst offenders tend to be the proponents of the less-used operating systems. You don't make converts with that attitude. In fact you don't get any respect at all.

As you all seem to be a civilised bunch - Is there anything civilised one can do with old Macs (or old PCs come to that)

Since I got my G4 my poor old faithful Performa has lain in a box languishing - nothing wrong with it apart from old age - any hints for how to avoid upgrade guilt?

If you don't need an old machine, there are various charities that might be able to make some use of it, either sending it overseas, or passing it on to someone who doesn't need the very latest hardware.

For PC hardware in the UK, see http://www.computeraid.org/ , or try a web search for other deserving causes.
I'm sure there must be groups who have use for old Macs - anything that can be used for browsing the net must be useful to somebody.

You could use it as a learning experience. Linux and netBSD have ports for the powerPC chip and should run nicely on an old machine.

Although i've never used it, I have read a couple of reviews that give it good marks, YellowDog Linux http://www.yellowdoglinux.com is available for PPC architecture.

you could always start a Beowulf cluster with all your old 486s.

Yes, YellowDog Linux is one good PPC distribution. Apparently LinuxPPC 2000 is another good one. http://www.linuxppc.com/ I've not tried either though.

I am trying to answer this from the least predjudiced perspective possible. I use both on a daily basis. Since the advent of this debate, Mac users have always claimed that their superiority lied in the ease of use, instant PlugNPlay capability, and stability. USB and Windows 2K (or Millenium) have nullified those benifits. If you look at the Mac's new offering vs. Dell's new offering, there is no comparison. The iMac does not even have a floppy drive, while the Dimension has a DVD/CD-R/RW and a Zip Drive. Add in the one button puck mouse, and I'd have to go with the Dell hands down. To speak nothing of the fast that it runs at 1200 Mhz.

But you're not comparing like with like. The iMac is aimed at a particular niche market. Compare the Dell with the new G4 and the Dell falls short on both equipment and speed.

*Some* Mac users have claimed that (about ease of use, etc), and for a while it was true. It's probably still true for someone who's never used a computer before, but that's a difficult position to observe from when you use both daily. I use Windows often enough that I find even with 2000 that I'm constantly annoyed by what I see as a less intuitive interface. But again, that's only my opinion. I can't say for sure that there's anything factual about it really; it may be based only in the fact that I've used Macs daily for much much longer. My main point here is, you can't make a fact statement claiming one is better than the other; it's all shrowded in opinion and bias and years of bitter debate.

As for the hardware, well, for one, there is not yet any 1200MHz processor from Dell, and you certainly can't compare the fastest Dell box to an iMac as the Dell is going to cost quite a bit more. The entry-level dell has I believe a 566MHz Celeron last time I checked, and a package with this in a base config starts at $699 with 15" monitor. You'd have to add a network card to bring it up to speed with the $799 iMac, and the monitor is lower-end than the iMac's built-in display. And this says nothing of the plain vs flashy style. By the way, haven't you heard? They've done away with the puck mouse and made a new one with optical tracking standard on every Mac, including the $799 entry-level iMac. How many buttons is of course still a matter of contention, but the Mac OS is designed to work fine with just one.

We went through the truth about MHz before. A Pentium III (or Athlon or whatever) clock speed is not directly comparable to a G3 or G4 clock speed. Some things will be faster on that low-end Celeron, like web surfing. Many things on that 350 MHz G3 entry-level iMac will be plenty faster than a significantly higher speed Pentium III/Celeron, though. And when you push higher, Apple has very agressively priced their new multiprocessor systems (quite possibly cheaper than any Intel-based MPs) although they currently come with the very real fact that MP means very little except for Photoshop and a few other apps until the intro of OS X.

Quite simply though, anytime you declare one or the other better, you haven't been objective.

CrazyOne, I'd dissagree with your assertion that anyone who hasn't used a computer before will find a mac easier. I thik they'd find them all equally as hard and it would depend on the training and coaching they got.

As for the number of buttons on the mouse, even for users of windows one mouse button is predominantly used (same with X for unix). Having those other buttons allows one to do more things without having to reach for the keyboard so much for the modifier keys (apple/command, shift, ctrl, alt, meta whatever depending on the system).

As everyone is quallifing their mac useage, I don't use macs but I do think that they make some neat kit (yes I'd like one - to put unix on it )

Isn't there someone you can give it to? I know there must be plenty who could not afford even the old performa, but at the same time, could put it to good use.......
Well, there just seems to be so many good used like that for it.....there are so many kids out there.......who, in spite of what we may think....might put it to very good use with homework.....

In fact, I know a child in Canada who could use the Performa, if you just want that kind of idea.....donating it.....write me at Paraclete [email protected] you are interested, and I will see about what I could do about the handling and shipping......

I didn't assert anything. I said "it probably is still true". And then I went on to say that it's "a difficult position to observe from". This is just as difficult a position for you to observe from when you don't use Macs at all. I love when people put down a system only based upon what others have said about it. All that said, I'd never claim to have any definitive facts to support my musing about what's easier for a newbie. The truth is it depends both upon the training *and* upon the new user and how they approach the use of such a machine.

Back to mice again, dismiss it all you like, but having one button does prevent once and for all the problem of pushing the wrong one, no matter how much you might dismiss that as an improbable error. (Users make that mistake, trust me.) And saying "having those other buttons" is pointless. Windows systems typically come with a 2-button mouse. If you want more than that, you have to buy one. Add-on mice aren't too expensive for those who would like to add them, and then you get to pick the shape, etc that you like. And those who aren't as picky will be happy with the standard included mouse.

Besides, it's backwards. Even in these days of graphical systems, my goal is to use the mouse *less*, not more. Because you're always forced to use the keyboard to type. Windows is much better at doing this too; many of the key shortcuts in Mac OS are almost "secret" or just nonexistant.

Thanks for all the ideas - I think I may have found someone who wants the mac so I don't feel so bad.

Thanks paraclete - if my current idea falls through I may well get in touch

I'm really annoyed. Last month I splashed out £1500 on a PIII 733, and now I find out for the same price I could have bought a Mac G4Cube 450Mhz that could run rings around it. Grrr.

Right, why schitzophrenic computers? In a word, Emulation.I've got a friend at Liverpool Uni with a Mac G2 Powerbook, and one of the programs he make full use of is a PC emulator and a blagged beta version of Win2K, and it still outperforms most PeeCees out there.

The only drawback is that you have to be reasonably lacking in moral fibre to do this.

O,get a sense of humour,Not-So-Crazy-one!
I'm sorry u don't respect me for my views,but its hard to be
in such a small minority,without everyone thinking that only
PCs & Macs exist in the world of computing.
Our old,out-of-date hardware is still going,& soon we'll be
out on the highway with a new state of the art machine.
BeSeeingU,
Amigo
8^D....Smile,Dammit!