Now I don't know about you, but I'd like to make my raytraced renderings faster than I do now - I render high-resolution images for print. A speed increase of 50% would bring the time I spend drinking coffee during the renderings down from 4 to maybe 2 hours - and that's healthy. I want my InDesign to work at high resolution with a 300 dpi, 50mb layered Photoshop image in realtime, I want to be able to make Flash MX presentations with quicktime movies embedded and a few transparent layers of text on top of it and run it without hiccups. And occasionally I would probably love to play Doom 3 in the evening to relax from a day of work.
I can imagine there are a bunch more areas where speed is needed. For those people who don't need a speedy machine Apple has the great iMac line. I've seen it run OSX and it's great. But people who do serious work with their Apple computers are thankful for every second they save with a given task, because at the end of the day those seconds add up and save a lot of time. And time is money. Or so I am told.<hr></blockquote>
I did say that I accpeted the need for more speed if you were rendering video, that would include 3D. However MOST users are not using their Powermacs for that. I also do not accept that people would buy Powermacs just to play childish games.
The point I was making is that a speed increase of processors from say 1 to 1.2ghz is less important than the improvements we are likely to see in 10.2. If Apple could get OSX to run at a similar speed to OS 9.X that would be a hugh boost and benifit all users not just those buying the latest machines. I would love to see much faster machines but I doubt that most people NEED it.
<strong>I did say that I accpeted the need for more speed if you were rendering video, that would include 3D. However MOST users are not using their Powermacs for that. I also do not accept that people would buy Powermacs just to play childish games.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I use the 3D I do for print, also. And I do multimedia. I use big-ass photoshop files (300 dpi and lotsa layers). If I had 1.2 ghz instead of 733 I can quite imagine that the InDesign high quality preview would be realtime - now it's not. And I want to play newer games than quake 3 (but that's more of a graphics card question).
[quote]Originally posted by Addison:
<strong>The point I was making is that a speed increase of processors from say 1 to 1.2ghz is less important than the improvements we are likely to see in 10.2. (snip) I would love to see much faster machines but I doubt that most people NEED it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yeah, but since OSX isn't going to support hell of a lot of old machines (10.2 needs what, 32mb of video ram and AGP 2x?) people who want to work nicely on it will need newer machines. And faster machines are always needed, unless you tend to run really old software (in which case you might stay with OS9).
To sum up your and my points: Most users don't need "speed". For those iMacs are great. Some users (who actually make moeny with their Mac) do need it. And those should be entitled to a PowerMac line that is getting faster with each revision. People who complain about speed are usually Power Mac/Users and those do need as much "speed" as they can get.
Even if you use your PowerMac for newspaper layout I am sure a faster machine will let you be more productive than a slower one. Even if it's only seconds you gain on time, those seconds add up.
I am one who is starting to gleen from some of the rumors that the next pro computer from Apple may not be called a G4 or G5. I think we can take the hint from the "Xserve," in that rumor discussed awhile back of the next pro machine being called the "X1" might indeed actually come to fruition (or maybe the XBOX? LOL! NO!)
I did say that I accpeted the need for more speed if you were rendering video, that would include 3D. However MOST users are not using their Powermacs for that. I also do not accept that people would buy Powermacs just to play childish games.
The point I was making is that a speed increase of processors from say 1 to 1.2ghz is less important than the improvements we are likely to see in 10.2. If Apple could get OSX to run at a similar speed to OS 9.X that would be a hugh boost and benifit all users not just those buying the latest machines. I would love to see much faster machines but I doubt that most people NEED it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You might not buy a computer to play "childish games" as you call them, but I know 5 people who are planing to buy new computers or make upgrades as soon as Unreal Tournament 2003 comes out. The driving force for high end computers on the PC side is not the business market, it is the gamers who need to by a new computer/video-card every six - ten months just so they can play the latest games. Most of the people I know play games, and if they want to play the latest and greatest games on a Mac, then they NEED a faster one then.
People who only use their computers for tasks that don't strain the processor (e.g., browsing, e-mail, web design etc.) are, for the most part, quite happy with the current powermacs. Those of us who work in video, audio, with large photoshop files, 3d rendering, or someone who just wants to play a demanding game, we really do need all computing power we can get.
I doubt that an X name would replace G4 or G5. The Xserve has a G4 processor. The X name would have to replace the Power Mac name, not the processor name.
I don't think they're going to change the name, though. They've had the Power Mac name since the introduction of the PowerPC. Why change it now? The only reason they called the server the Xserve is because Power Server sounds dumb. The Power prefix also words with the product matrix, which the Xserve doesn't fit into.
I think a name change isn't likely in any case, but it's more likely if there's a new case (pun intended).
Apple have done cool things with the architecture (no-one has come close to talking about them) and they will make this thing the fastest graphics box you can buy for under 20k.
<strong>But with the engine and target hardware I have seen in real operation, the quest for stupidly high frame rates is just so muck bunk and wasted $$ for ego trips (but it does still seem to drive the market).</strong><hr></blockquote>
Actually that is not quite correct. It might be true for idiotic multiplayer shoot-em-ups but in a single player "environment" a setup with more horsepower allows the games to use heavier AI and physics models for example. Not that many games are much more than FPSs lately, but still the trend is going towards hyper-realistic environments which can only be done with a minimum set of features on the gfx card and a CPU fast enough to accompany it.
Remember, if you take load of the CPU you can have it work on a different task instead. Of course you are right that the market is driven by ego-trip-guys wanting to have 500 gazzilion frames per second in quake3. And it is also true that Apple, for one, can not serve this market right now.
<strong>Actually that is not quite correct. It might be true for idiotic multiplayer shoot-em-ups but in a single player "environment" a setup with more horsepower allows the games to use heavier AI and physics models for example. Not that many games are much more than FPSs lately, but still the trend is going towards hyper-realistic environments which can only be done with a minimum set of features on the gfx card and a CPU fast enough to accompany it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Nevertheless, the game has to sell, which means that it has to be able to run on a certain number of machines. It costs money to make pretty graphics and smart (OK, not hilariously stupid) AI and realistic physics, and that money has to be made up somewhere. The number of bleeding edge upgrade freaks out there isn't enough to sustain anyone. So game engines usually degrade gracefully. Someone on a 2MX will see good graphics, a decent framerate, and full AI and physics (those can't be compromised because they materially affect gameplay) and someone on a Radeon 8500 will see much prettier graphics and a better framerate.
Macs will see a sudden leap in the capabilities of their graphics cards when Apple rolls in OpenGL 2.0 (which they can't do until the ARB is finished defining it...). I'm not much of a gamer, but my Radeon and I are looking forward to that day.
<strong>Macs will see a sudden leap in the capabilities of their graphics cards when Apple rolls in OpenGL 2.0 (which they can't do until the ARB is finished defining it...). I'm not much of a gamer, but my Radeon and I are looking forward to that day. </strong><hr></blockquote>
I agree about games having to run on "older" hardware, but still I think that games that will be/are using the Unreal and Doom3 engines will be a reason for people to upgrade their hardware to gf3/radeon 8500 and faster CPUs.
OpenGL 2.0 on the other hand will most likely be great, yet I wonder how fast Apple will adopt it (didn't they take their time with OGL 1.x?). And even if Apple does adopt it I wonder whether the graphic card vendors will release drivers for anything less than the NVidia NV30 or ATI R300 cards. I am afraid all the users of ATI Radeon 8500 and GF3/4 cards could end up unlucky. And then the question arises whether the new series of cards will ba able to run on the now current PowerMac line.
It might as well happen that if you'd like OpenGL 2.0 you'll have to upgrade! But then, I look forward to 2.0, too.
"People who only use their computers for tasks that don't strain the processor (e.g., browsing, e-mail, web design etc.) are, for the most part, quite happy with the current powermacs. Those of us who work in video, audio, with large photoshop files, 3d rendering, or someone who just wants to play a demanding game, we really do need all computing power we can get."
Yep.
My experience of 3D? You can't have enough processing power. And a dual G5 would be the ticket in terms of my next upgrade. (At least in terms of the 'leaked' specs I saw on the net...)
After owning a 1.6 gig Athlon with 1 gig of DDR and an ati 8500, then the next 'Power'mac I buy had better show a perceptive improvement for the kind of 3D I do. Why pay £2,500 pounds for anything less or the same?
<strong>It can be done (and not very hard if I could figure out a way to possibly do it), my angle looked into doing a similar thing for my thesis (content related vice more physics/AI) but I went with something else due to that potential advisors unavailability.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I guess it could be as simple as having two dynamic linked libraries with to code trees (complicated/simple) and running a short fps benchmark after which the "right" subset of physics/AI code could be loaded. I know some games can be told to use either OpenGL or DirectX for drawing so it should be entirely possible to do it with other stuff than graphics. The question however is which programmer is willing to spend time on better AI when he can play with pixel shaders and feel like the next Carmack..
The iBook will get updated in late may, early June. Processor speed will jump to a 700Mhz G3 across the board. A 100Mhz system bus will also become standard. The video memory will get bumped to 16MB, although the type of card that will be used is unknown. Note: This will be the last revision before the iBook moves over to a G4 sometime in Q1 of 2003. <hr></blockquote>
Not bad...700mhx iBooks out this AM, with 100mhz bus and 16mb Radeon.
There have been a few good points raised in this thread. Rather than mentioning who said what, I'm going to offer my 2 cents on this topic.
1) Those that threaten to leave the Mac platform if there are only 1.2 GHZ G4s in July... Please, do us a favor and leave already. This sort of nonsense adds nothing to the discussion and only displays an irrational way of thinking.
2) Those that think people don't upgrade their hardware or even buy new computers just to play games, beleive it! They do. Both on PCs and Macs, games are generally considered the number one reason to upgrade in the consumer/prosumer space (which does include G4 towers). This goes along with people bragging about using Macs that are 5 years old or more (often noting that PCs don't last as long). That's great, but I can guarantee these people aren't playing games that are even 3 years old, doing the digital hub thing, etc.
3) What's with all of this hope for OpenGL 2.0? I'm not sure I understand the rationale behind the performance expectations. The next version of OpenGL is only going to formalize a method of implementation of current features that are being handled via OpenGL extensions. Is there some hope that Apple's implemenation will be better than those of the video card companies (nVidia, ATI, etc.)? It's possible Apple may spend some time vectorizing some of the new code if it is possible to do so and if the current OGL extensions are not optimized. Short of that, I wouldn't expect any big improvent, particularly on the current core OpenGL stuff.
4) Someone else asked if anyone here is actually running on a dual 1GHZ G4 system right now. That a good question, particularly to those who are constantly complaing about performance. My guess is that most people are not using such a machine. Hell, even in terms of games, the dual G4s with Geforce 4 Ti's have gone into the 200+ fps range in Quake 3. Really, how much more is needed, other than for a bragging rights? Most current shooters (like RtCW, etc.) are based on the Q3 engine. From my personal experience, I see no benefit beyond 60fps in games. Even at that, it's because I want my minimum fps to remain above 30fps in the heavy load areas. That said, the only good argument for more speed is so that you'll be able to run future software for a longer period of time.
With all of that said, I'm sure there are a few people that freelance and every second rendering a final production counts against billable time for another project, etc. For some people, there will never be enough speed. For others, it just seems that way ;-)
[quote]<strong>What's with all of this hope for OpenGL 2.0?</strong><hr></blockquote>
In my case, it centers on support for all the features that are currently offered as vendor extensions (but not on the Mac), not on any magical increase in speed. Although apparently OpenGL 2.0 includes instructions which can be (and are designed to be) vectorized. Hello AltiVec.
<strong>3) What's with all of this hope for OpenGL 2.0? I'm not sure I understand the rationale behind the performance expectations.</strong><hr></blockquote>
My expectation of OpenGL 2.0 is that we will finally start seeing 3D software that makes real usage of the pixel/vertex shaders and the potential of the current generation 3D cards since developers wont need to stick some 250 OpenGL extensions into their code (which they are currently too "lazy" to do anyway) just to get something like multitexturing into their application (be it a game or a 3D suite).
[quote]Originally posted by SteveS:
<strong>With all of that said, I'm sure there are a few people that freelance and every second rendering a final production counts against billable time for another project, etc. For some people, there will never be enough speed. For others, it just seems that way ;-)
Steve</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, I am one of those freelance guys and performance does count (a lot) to me. But I had my share of MacOS X (school) and InDesign (typo berlin) and OS X software (colleagues) demos during the last 2 weeks and I was very impressed (coming from a NT & OS9 world). I would be happier with 1.8 ghz G5, surely, but I think even 1.2 ghz with OSX 10.2 will rock. As long as I'll stick 1gb ram into it, that is <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />
"That a good question, particularly to those who are constantly complaing about performance. My guess is that most people are not using such a machine. "
Comments
Now I don't know about you, but I'd like to make my raytraced renderings faster than I do now - I render high-resolution images for print. A speed increase of 50% would bring the time I spend drinking coffee during the renderings down from 4 to maybe 2 hours - and that's healthy. I want my InDesign to work at high resolution with a 300 dpi, 50mb layered Photoshop image in realtime, I want to be able to make Flash MX presentations with quicktime movies embedded and a few transparent layers of text on top of it and run it without hiccups. And occasionally I would probably love to play Doom 3 in the evening to relax from a day of work.
I can imagine there are a bunch more areas where speed is needed. For those people who don't need a speedy machine Apple has the great iMac line. I've seen it run OSX and it's great. But people who do serious work with their Apple computers are thankful for every second they save with a given task, because at the end of the day those seconds add up and save a lot of time. And time is money. Or so I am told.<hr></blockquote>
I did say that I accpeted the need for more speed if you were rendering video, that would include 3D. However MOST users are not using their Powermacs for that. I also do not accept that people would buy Powermacs just to play childish games.
The point I was making is that a speed increase of processors from say 1 to 1.2ghz is less important than the improvements we are likely to see in 10.2. If Apple could get OSX to run at a similar speed to OS 9.X that would be a hugh boost and benifit all users not just those buying the latest machines. I would love to see much faster machines but I doubt that most people NEED it.
<strong>I did say that I accpeted the need for more speed if you were rendering video, that would include 3D. However MOST users are not using their Powermacs for that. I also do not accept that people would buy Powermacs just to play childish games.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I use the 3D I do for print, also. And I do multimedia. I use big-ass photoshop files (300 dpi and lotsa layers). If I had 1.2 ghz instead of 733 I can quite imagine that the InDesign high quality preview would be realtime - now it's not. And I want to play newer games than quake 3 (but that's more of a graphics card question).
[quote]Originally posted by Addison:
<strong>The point I was making is that a speed increase of processors from say 1 to 1.2ghz is less important than the improvements we are likely to see in 10.2. (snip) I would love to see much faster machines but I doubt that most people NEED it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yeah, but since OSX isn't going to support hell of a lot of old machines (10.2 needs what, 32mb of video ram and AGP 2x?) people who want to work nicely on it will need newer machines. And faster machines are always needed, unless you tend to run really old software (in which case you might stay with OS9).
To sum up your and my points: Most users don't need "speed". For those iMacs are great. Some users (who actually make moeny with their Mac) do need it. And those should be entitled to a PowerMac line that is getting faster with each revision. People who complain about speed are usually Power Mac/Users and those do need as much "speed" as they can get.
Even if you use your PowerMac for newspaper layout I am sure a faster machine will let you be more productive than a slower one. Even if it's only seconds you gain on time, those seconds add up.
<strong>
I did say that I accpeted the need for more speed if you were rendering video, that would include 3D. However MOST users are not using their Powermacs for that. I also do not accept that people would buy Powermacs just to play childish games.
The point I was making is that a speed increase of processors from say 1 to 1.2ghz is less important than the improvements we are likely to see in 10.2. If Apple could get OSX to run at a similar speed to OS 9.X that would be a hugh boost and benifit all users not just those buying the latest machines. I would love to see much faster machines but I doubt that most people NEED it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You might not buy a computer to play "childish games" as you call them, but I know 5 people who are planing to buy new computers or make upgrades as soon as Unreal Tournament 2003 comes out. The driving force for high end computers on the PC side is not the business market, it is the gamers who need to by a new computer/video-card every six - ten months just so they can play the latest games. Most of the people I know play games, and if they want to play the latest and greatest games on a Mac, then they NEED a faster one then.
People who only use their computers for tasks that don't strain the processor (e.g., browsing, e-mail, web design etc.) are, for the most part, quite happy with the current powermacs. Those of us who work in video, audio, with large photoshop files, 3d rendering, or someone who just wants to play a demanding game, we really do need all computing power we can get.
[ 05-18-2002: Message edited by: Res ]</p>
I don't think they're going to change the name, though. They've had the Power Mac name since the introduction of the PowerPC. Why change it now? The only reason they called the server the Xserve is because Power Server sounds dumb. The Power prefix also words with the product matrix, which the Xserve doesn't fit into.
I think a name change isn't likely in any case, but it's more likely if there's a new case (pun intended).
<strong>
Apple have done cool things with the architecture (no-one has come close to talking about them) and they will make this thing the fastest graphics box you can buy for under 20k.
[ 05-18-2002: Message edited by: philbot ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
20K? I hope its under 4K.
<strong>But with the engine and target hardware I have seen in real operation, the quest for stupidly high frame rates is just so muck bunk and wasted $$ for ego trips (but it does still seem to drive the market).</strong><hr></blockquote>
Actually that is not quite correct. It might be true for idiotic multiplayer shoot-em-ups but in a single player "environment" a setup with more horsepower allows the games to use heavier AI and physics models for example. Not that many games are much more than FPSs lately, but still the trend is going towards hyper-realistic environments which can only be done with a minimum set of features on the gfx card and a CPU fast enough to accompany it.
Remember, if you take load of the CPU you can have it work on a different task instead. Of course you are right that the market is driven by ego-trip-guys wanting to have 500 gazzilion frames per second in quake3. And it is also true that Apple, for one, can not serve this market right now.
<strong>Actually that is not quite correct. It might be true for idiotic multiplayer shoot-em-ups but in a single player "environment" a setup with more horsepower allows the games to use heavier AI and physics models for example. Not that many games are much more than FPSs lately, but still the trend is going towards hyper-realistic environments which can only be done with a minimum set of features on the gfx card and a CPU fast enough to accompany it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Nevertheless, the game has to sell, which means that it has to be able to run on a certain number of machines. It costs money to make pretty graphics and smart (OK, not hilariously stupid) AI and realistic physics, and that money has to be made up somewhere. The number of bleeding edge upgrade freaks out there isn't enough to sustain anyone. So game engines usually degrade gracefully. Someone on a 2MX will see good graphics, a decent framerate, and full AI and physics (those can't be compromised because they materially affect gameplay) and someone on a Radeon 8500 will see much prettier graphics and a better framerate.
Macs will see a sudden leap in the capabilities of their graphics cards when Apple rolls in OpenGL 2.0 (which they can't do until the ARB is finished defining it...). I'm not much of a gamer, but my Radeon and I are looking forward to that day.
it is insaine!
the things are already so fast that you dont need any faster computers.
you can do everything on them.
and i bet that almost none of you have a dual 1 gig mac.
so just get a faster mac first instead of complaining abaut "we want faster macs"
so lets stop the bulshit and wait until there is a reasonable explenation to al of this noncense.
i also know it is good to kick pc users ass.
but as far as we can tell it is gonna take a while.
but i hope we wil kick some good ass.
grtz
[ 05-19-2002: Message edited by: jonasvdl ]</p>
<strong>Macs will see a sudden leap in the capabilities of their graphics cards when Apple rolls in OpenGL 2.0 (which they can't do until the ARB is finished defining it...). I'm not much of a gamer, but my Radeon and I are looking forward to that day.
I agree about games having to run on "older" hardware, but still I think that games that will be/are using the Unreal and Doom3 engines will be a reason for people to upgrade their hardware to gf3/radeon 8500 and faster CPUs.
OpenGL 2.0 on the other hand will most likely be great, yet I wonder how fast Apple will adopt it (didn't they take their time with OGL 1.x?). And even if Apple does adopt it I wonder whether the graphic card vendors will release drivers for anything less than the NVidia NV30 or ATI R300 cards. I am afraid all the users of ATI Radeon 8500 and GF3/4 cards could end up unlucky. And then the question arises whether the new series of cards will ba able to run on the now current PowerMac line.
It might as well happen that if you'd like OpenGL 2.0 you'll have to upgrade!
Yep.
My experience of 3D? You can't have enough processing power. And a dual G5 would be the ticket in terms of my next upgrade. (At least in terms of the 'leaked' specs I saw on the net...)
After owning a 1.6 gig Athlon with 1 gig of DDR and an ati 8500, then the next 'Power'mac I buy had better show a perceptive improvement for the kind of 3D I do. Why pay £2,500 pounds for anything less or the same?
Lemon Bon Bon
<strong>It can be done (and not very hard if I could figure out a way to possibly do it), my angle looked into doing a similar thing for my thesis (content related vice more physics/AI) but I went with something else due to that potential advisors unavailability.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I guess it could be as simple as having two dynamic linked libraries with to code trees (complicated/simple) and running a short fps benchmark after which the "right" subset of physics/AI code could be loaded. I know some games can be told to use either OpenGL or DirectX for drawing so it should be entirely possible to do it with other stuff than graphics. The question however is which programmer is willing to spend time on better AI when he can play with pixel shaders and feel like the next Carmack..
The iBook will get updated in late may, early June. Processor speed will jump to a 700Mhz G3 across the board. A 100Mhz system bus will also become standard. The video memory will get bumped to 16MB, although the type of card that will be used is unknown. Note: This will be the last revision before the iBook moves over to a G4 sometime in Q1 of 2003. <hr></blockquote>
Not bad...700mhx iBooks out this AM, with 100mhz bus and 16mb Radeon.
1) Those that threaten to leave the Mac platform if there are only 1.2 GHZ G4s in July... Please, do us a favor and leave already. This sort of nonsense adds nothing to the discussion and only displays an irrational way of thinking.
2) Those that think people don't upgrade their hardware or even buy new computers just to play games, beleive it! They do. Both on PCs and Macs, games are generally considered the number one reason to upgrade in the consumer/prosumer space (which does include G4 towers). This goes along with people bragging about using Macs that are 5 years old or more (often noting that PCs don't last as long). That's great, but I can guarantee these people aren't playing games that are even 3 years old, doing the digital hub thing, etc.
3) What's with all of this hope for OpenGL 2.0? I'm not sure I understand the rationale behind the performance expectations. The next version of OpenGL is only going to formalize a method of implementation of current features that are being handled via OpenGL extensions. Is there some hope that Apple's implemenation will be better than those of the video card companies (nVidia, ATI, etc.)? It's possible Apple may spend some time vectorizing some of the new code if it is possible to do so and if the current OGL extensions are not optimized. Short of that, I wouldn't expect any big improvent, particularly on the current core OpenGL stuff.
4) Someone else asked if anyone here is actually running on a dual 1GHZ G4 system right now. That a good question, particularly to those who are constantly complaing about performance. My guess is that most people are not using such a machine. Hell, even in terms of games, the dual G4s with Geforce 4 Ti's have gone into the 200+ fps range in Quake 3. Really, how much more is needed, other than for a bragging rights? Most current shooters (like RtCW, etc.) are based on the Q3 engine. From my personal experience, I see no benefit beyond 60fps in games. Even at that, it's because I want my minimum fps to remain above 30fps in the heavy load areas. That said, the only good argument for more speed is so that you'll be able to run future software for a longer period of time.
With all of that said, I'm sure there are a few people that freelance and every second rendering a final production counts against billable time for another project, etc. For some people, there will never be enough speed. For others, it just seems that way ;-)
Steve
[quote]<strong>What's with all of this hope for OpenGL 2.0?</strong><hr></blockquote>
In my case, it centers on support for all the features that are currently offered as vendor extensions (but not on the Mac), not on any magical increase in speed. Although apparently OpenGL 2.0 includes instructions which can be (and are designed to be) vectorized. Hello AltiVec.
<strong>3) What's with all of this hope for OpenGL 2.0? I'm not sure I understand the rationale behind the performance expectations.</strong><hr></blockquote>
My expectation of OpenGL 2.0 is that we will finally start seeing 3D software that makes real usage of the pixel/vertex shaders and the potential of the current generation 3D cards since developers wont need to stick some 250 OpenGL extensions into their code (which they are currently too "lazy" to do anyway) just to get something like multitexturing into their application (be it a game or a 3D suite).
[quote]Originally posted by SteveS:
<strong>With all of that said, I'm sure there are a few people that freelance and every second rendering a final production counts against billable time for another project, etc. For some people, there will never be enough speed. For others, it just seems that way ;-)
Steve</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, I am one of those freelance guys and performance does count (a lot) to me. But I had my share of MacOS X (school) and InDesign (typo berlin) and OS X software (colleagues) demos during the last 2 weeks and I was very impressed (coming from a NT & OS9 world). I would be happier with 1.8 ghz G5, surely, but I think even 1.2 ghz with OSX 10.2 will rock. As long as I'll stick 1gb ram into it, that is <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />
No. I'm using something faster.
A 'low' end PC.
Lemon Bon Bon