2 posts tagged “mac”

As we all know, Microsoft used the tagline "what do you want to do today?" (or "where do you want to go today?" in web-related ads) in a lot of PR, whilst Apple tended to stick with "Think Different" or, in earlier advertisements, "Tomorrow's PC, today" or variations on that theme. So, putting aside all the hyperbole, it seems that both are focusing on pushing the user experience, as opposed to the hardware itself. Windows' advertising aims itself at the audience by asking what you want and, by implication, suggesting that Windows has the ability to get you there. Apple tedns to position itself as a bit left-field, more creative in its thinking and thus better able to understand your needs. In fact, in reality, its products do tend to meed the users' expectations far better, so maybe it's a case of the ads just reporting on the reality. However, all this talk of advertising is getting me away from the crux of what I wanted to talk about, which is that, whilst I love older Macs, just how useful are they? Should I stop lusting after a quad G5 with full RAM and top-spec graphics and settle for a brand new top-of the line iMac instead, given the cost of G5s at the moment? Is there any value in buying last-gen technology when the current stuff is available from such (comparitively) low costs?

 Well, maybe not in the case of a G5, as it's no longer the top-dog workhorse and prices are artificially high from all those private owners who are trying to recoup the cost of purchase and are, thus, maybe being a little unrealistic in their acceptance of depreciation. For example, I bought a Xeon-powered Windows workstation in 2002 that cost in excess of £10000 (for a business I was running). It had 4GB of RAMBUS memory, a 128mb Wildcat graphics card, Audigy soundcard with I/O box, etc and is still usefully quick today. However, it's worth about £4.50 if I stick it on eBay and I think the G5 towers are suffering the same thing - they're more than just useful (in fact, only those who are doing feature film editing or working on high resolution images for use on billboards are likely to call them slow, but adding the full compliment of RAM would help with that). However, if I can buy an old quad G5 with monitor and it costs £1000-£1500 by the time the bidding stops, why wouldn't I just save up a bit more and get a new quad-core, dual CPU  MacPro? Or buy an iMac 24" with dual-core 2.8GHz and 512mb Nvidia graphics? I'm not being a nay-sayer, as I still love the old G5, but the fact is that people are being unrealistic in the market value at the moment, so I'd steer clear for a year until they drop through the floor. They'll still be able to edit your video, or tinker with your photos, but you won't pay through the nose for it.

 So why do I like the G5 so much? Well, aside from the design, which is a thing of Bauhaus-ian beauty inside and out, the fact is that I like the ability to fire up Classic mode and use all my old applications without the need to run an emulator. Not only that, but as someone whose home computing is mainly web-surfing, blogging and the occasional bit of image and video work, a G5 is more than adequate. Even my desire to get back to doing some Flash and Director coding is not going to tax it. Also, I'm always nervous about my main workstation being an all-in-one, as if the screen dies, I can't work, whereas if my old PowerMac screen died, I could change the monitor and carry on. That, and I'd really like the 30" display on my desk for artwork and layout work. Then again, the 24" iMac would be fine for that, too. Basically, whilst I am what would be considered a power user, the G5 would do all I need and be fast enough. Hell, my old G4 was fast enough. This is really the point - do you want the latest, greatest, oh-my-god-it's-so-fast machine to boast to your friends, or do you want to actually get stuff done. If it's the latter, then most Macs still running are useful (for a given value of useful). You can word process, do some DTP or web design, look at your photos, listen to tunes and edit/watch a movie. Who can honestly say they use a home computer for much else? Especially if you own a PS3 for gaming? Not me, that's for sure - I want something reliable (so I don't come in from work and then get stressed during my leisure time by a computer that won't work), well designed and that is quick enough.

 So what is "quick enough"?

 Last post, I talked about my love of Silicon Graphics machines, but the truth is that the central processors in them are slow. The machines are usable because of the huge array of custom hardware taking work away from the CPU, but in the Megahertz wars, they are trounced by cheap Intel chips. What they are, though, is stable. my old Iris Indigo was only ever rebooted when software installations required it. My Powermac G4 was also stable - working quite happily for weeks at a time until Software Update asked me to reboot. This means that renders can be left overnight if needs be, safe in the knowledge that they'll be done in the morning. If I left my windows machine to do that, it'd crash and reboot or run slower and slower until I restarted because Windows leaves junk in the memory and bloats its registry. So, in real world terms, the Windows machine was screamingly quick, but because it would require at least one restart a day, the truth is you only got the same amount of work done. Now, if the MacPro has all of the clock speed and none of the instability of a high end Windows machine, then it will be a thing of wonder, but in the real world, I think I'd get a good two or three years out of a quad G5 mac, because I don't really care if it takes an extra half hour to render out my hour-long film - I'll be billing for time if it's work and drinking tea and chatting to my wife if it's something I am doing as a hobby. In fact, the ability to let it chug away whilst I stare out of the window is a plus point in my books - it forces me to slow down and relax a little, as opposed to tearing along at 90mph all day, then getting in and doing the same in my leisure time. "Quick enough" means that a machine doesn't take two hours to respond to a key-press, but that it might take a little while to think about some hugely intensive task. It means you might not be able to do fifty things at once all at a million miles per hour, but that you would surely be able to do the tasks you were trying to do. Given that criteria, the G5 is perfect for me and, depending on the cost, I hope to pick up a quad G5 with maximum RAM and top end graphics ASAP.

 So, there you go - buy a G5 and avoid a heart attack. Surely that's a tagline that someone can use?

 A while ago I posted about the little G3 iMac and the PowerBook G3 I bought and how I thought they were great, which I am sure you remember and, given that I am typing this on the PowerBook, I think it's safe to say I haven't changed my mind just yet. So, when I was recently left to my own devices for a week, I thought I'd investigate this passion for so-called "obsolete" computer stuff. Or, more precisely, Macintosh stuff.

 There is a very good reason I stayed away from the PC side of things - they are not in any way inspiring. I can recall my first 396SX machine, but I don't wish to relive that experience. No way am I going back to voluntarily creating DOS batch files just to get a game to work, or having to manually edit Config.sys or Autoexec.bat files in order to get Windows to work, no matter how cool I thought "Catacomb: The Abyss" or "The Rocketeer" were. Besides, I can happily run them on my Vaio as it's still fundamentally x86 architecture.

 So, what's so appealing about old Mac stuff? Well, from a purely personal perspective, it goes back to the time I was going to get a computer for studying and doing my GCSE in Computer Studies on. Pocket money, birthday and christmas money and a generous father meant I had about £1500 saved up and I tried out a Macintosh Classic and an LC with 13" colour monitor. Compared to the 12MHz 286-based RM Nimbus harddisc-less machines at school (and they were good for the time, so how old do I feel?), both the Macs felt light years ahead in what they could do, but I couldn't afford the LC, the screen, software and a printer, and my dad wasn't keen on me spending hours in front of a 9" black and white screen. In the end, I was cajoled into buying the 386 and, whilst it did the job, I always felt a bit let down.

 Having been a teenage computer geek, I obviously read Personal Computer World regularly (it used to be interesting and covered Mac and Unix as well as DOS - windows was only at 3.0/3.1 at that point) and I harboured a desire to work on machines such as NeXT, Sun and, the Holy Grail - a Silicon Graphics workstation. Unix, with a friendly GUI-led operating system that had multimedia, 3d and digital audio support in 1992? That was the stuff of dreams. In fact, a review of the Iris Indigo stated that whilst the Indigo cost nearly £15,000, as opposed to an average of £1,000 for a 386/486 PC, it was definitely worth the money as it was far more productive than trying to do the work on 10 or more PCs.

 

 Later in life, whilst working as a software developer, I worked on SGI machines and they were truly as good as I'd hoped they would be. I bought myself an SGI Indigo on eBay for £150 (MIPS R4400 processor upgrade at 150MHz, with 192Mb of RAM and the Elan graphics, with 21" inch monitor) some time ago and I loved it.

 Given that it was made in 1993, my dad (who is now 66 and who has zero experience of video editing) was able to find his way around and tinker with some video clips within ten minutes. I would personally say that the only systems worth using are a Mac running OSX (with Classic supported), a NeXT machine or an SGI machine running IRIX. Anything else is compromised.

 Eventually, I bought myself a swanky new Powermac G4 (I was a early adopter of the G4) running OS9, then later OS X. It was everything I hoped it would be - usable, stable, reliable and a joy to work on. To put it in perspective, I later ran my own business and the Mac G4 was the preferred choice for video editing despite the fact it was sat next to a hugely expensive dual Xeon workstation with 4GB of memory. It just worked better and gave less hassle. Not only that, but I could probably sell the G4 setup for £200 today, despite it's age, whereas the windows machine is essentially worthless. Look on eBay for a used Powermac G5 (a machine that is some 4 or more years old now) and compare that to the cost of a Dell running a four year old Pentium. The price difference is down to the fact that Macs are usable for far longer (their obsolescence is far longer in coming). Windows bloats and bloats and you spend so much time fighting bad OS coding and built-to-a-price hardware, whereas the expensive (comparitively) Apple machines are still good as a workhorse years down the line. If you're more concerned about getting something done than about having the latest new toy, then buy a Mac. You won't ever regret it.

 So, what does this have to do with my original point? Well, aside from an urge to pick up a Mac Classic (or, ideally, a Colour Classic II) for the sake of nostalgia, my love of my old Powerbook G3 means that I'm not likely to be playing Quake 4 anytime soon (ok, I have a PS3 and a PSP, but I was talking about computers!), so I looked into the world of abandonware games. My word, there's a ton of cool things you can play on your old Mac and, because in those days we thought the Megadrive (Sega Genesis to our US friends) was graphically amazing, it means gameplay had to be more engrossing and plots had to mean something. With that in mind, I've explored the universe of Cosmic Osmo (this is the first game any child of mine will play!), along with Broken Sword, Monkey Island 1 and 2, Indiana Jones and the Fate of Atlantis, Day of the Tentacle and Sam and Max.

 

 If you noticed a pattern, then you're right - they are all graphical point and click adventures, a genre which is sadly underwhelming nowadays, but in the days when these were made, they were the nearest you'd get to playing a film and enjoying it.

 I've posted a few clips to give you an idea of what you are missing - if in doubt, you don't need to buy an old Mac (although I would), you can run them under either ScummVM, or you could download a Mac emulator from the trusty old interweb.

 

Personal favourites of mine are:

 

Sam and Max (I love the cartoons, too, as I get the humour)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Indiana Jones and The Fate of Atlantis - a great sequel to The Last Crusade and very funny in parts.

 

 

 

 

 

Day Of the Tentacle (again, it's funny as hell and looks great)

 

 

 

 

 

The final choice is Broken Sword - great scripting, great graphics, the sound is fantastic and you really get sucked in. I believe I've played Broken sword on every platform it's been released on. The second one is good, too, although the later sequel on the XBox was a bit poor.

  So, have a look, enjoy and realise that whilst new games are lovely, sometimes you can't beat something a decade old for sheer enjoyment. And if anyone has an old Mac Classic/Classic II or Colour Classic they want to donate to aloving home, please let me know!