5 posts tagged “macintosh”

 As the Euromillions peaked at over £85Million this week, I thought I'd take a punt and bought a ticket (of course playing when there's a mere £15Million in the jackpot would just be a waste of money...). Of course, I didn't in, but I did spend an interesting half an hour contemplating what I'd buy if I did. Of course, I'd build my wife and I the house of our dreams - traditional oak framed manor house with Art Deco interior, using reclaimed tiles and bricks, etc, to make the house look well-aged. I'm not saying we've thought about much, but I can even tell you where the door handles come from. So, we have somewhere to live, but what to put in it?

 Well, there is the question of cars - we'd need a couple to cover all eventualities. We're good for a saloon as we already have a well-loved and cherished Jaguar that my wife calls Honoria, after the forceful girl in the Wodehouse books - I don't know why, but somehow it makes sense. So, what other four-wheeled delights would there be? A Veyron, perhaps? Perhaps - but what is it for? It's too flabby and large to be a back-road scorcher, but it's got zero luggage room for continent-crushing touring. A DB9 or even a Merc SLR is far better suited to whisking myself and the wife off for a weekend. It's too refined to give that seat-of-the-pants driving experience you'd wat from a sports car...ultimately, it's just about two things - the top speed and the price tag and, much as I think it's a lovely piece of engineering, I think it's just basically a £3Million game of Top Trumps. With this in mind, I think I'd pick up a DB9 or a Bently GT for the touring side of things, a Ferrari 430 Spider for the backroads and a Jag SS100 replica from Suffolk Sportscars for sunny weekends and picnics. Oh, and I'd still have only spend about 1/3 of the cost of a Veyron at most. Add a Jaguar XJ220 to the collection and maybe a green or orange Lambo (Murcielago) or an orange Zonda for my wife (god bless her, she does love the lairy Italian hypercars). Finally, my wife would need a Range Rover for snow/horsebox-pulling/trolling around the farmland. So, we have the cars and the house...and we've still only spent maybe £5Million. £10Million including building stables, buying a horse and associated ephemera for my wife, kitting out a nice gym and building the indoor heated pool...

 Ok, let's just say we got a quarter share of the jackpot - a mere £21,250,000. We've spent under half of it and we're already living like royalty, albeit without the claims of racism and detachment from reality...

 So, let's up the ante and be generous. Let's buy houses for our families - £1Million to each set of parents and, say £500,000 to my brother-in-law. We've still got £8.75Million to account for...ok, put £2Million in a high interest account and live off the interest (10% flat rate gives an annual income of £200,000 tax-free for life, over an above any earnings). What next? £1Million to charity, I think - £250,000 to Great Ormond Street, £250,000 Macmillan Nurses and £500,000 to Comic Relief should help a few people, at least. Well, with the remaining £5.75 Million, what is there to do?

 Well as with all computer geeks, there's the techno-porn list - the ultimate haven of computer hardware. That list, for me, would look a little like this:

NeXTs:

NeXTStation, NeXTStation Color, NeXTStation Turbo, NeXTStation Turbo Color, Next Cube (with accellerator, maximum RAM, 4 GB hdd, CDROM, Two NeXTDimension boards and a second motherboard), all with monitors (3 in the case of the Cube). Add a NeXT color and a NeXT laser printer, too. Hell, the Internet as we know it now was basically created on this hardware. Punches well above its weight as far as being useful with a really slow CPU.

SGIs:

Crimson Reality Engine, Tezro - quad CPU, Onyx 2 Infinite Reality deskside, O2 with 1600sw monitor (or should I say, another O2). I like Irix and part of me really wants to run some 3D work on the Infinite Reality hardware...the Crimson would just be there for the love of it and the Tezro and O2 would be used for Maya and Video work, etc.

Apple:

PowerMac Quad G5 - max out the RAM and storage, add a top-flight GFX card and a 24" display. It's fast enough for Flash, Photoshop and the like, more than quick enough for Final Cut and Combustion and still runs my old Classic games and apps, so I wouldn't want a maximum spec MacPro. Oh, what the hell, throw in a IIfx and a Classic for giggles, too - they can keep my iMac company.

PC:

The temptation here is to go for a single all-in-one wonder PC, but we're not exactly stretched for budget, so I think I'd go for a Tesla-based GPU machine (the Nvidia Personal Supercomputer, for example), dual booting both XP Pro64 and Linux 64 (running OpenStep/GnuStep on Ubuntu seems the best bet) - this would probably default to linux, running as a cluster/render box for the SGI machines and as a really fast server and SETI@Home, etc, box on the Unix side of things. When booted to Windows, it'd be used for transcoding DVDs, etc, at about a million miles per hour.

On the leisure side of computing (not that video editing, coding and writing tech docs is not my idea of fun), I think I'd like something truly funky - something I could game on, watch movies on and do some creative tinkering on and which is relatively future-proof. Ideally, it should be easy on the eye, as this would be in my office/den for home-working, not in the "tech bunker" with all the other stuff. Enter Alienware and their ALX series of "luxury" gaming PCs. I'd probably go for one of their green cases, as it's different and suits the case design (although the black looks good), I'd also be tempted by one of Panoram's lovely multiscreen displays, as I'd have the graphics output to power this bad-boy. In fact, I might also be tempted to use one on the Tesla machine, because this screen is so nice.

 I've become very weary of laptops lately - I have a lovely old Pismo but I need a new battery for it and that will cost probably more than I paid for the machine. i have a white MacBook for work and I really don't get on with it - the sharp edge to the wrist-rest area, the awful keyboard, the constant dropping of wireless signal and the crashing of Safari and Firefox on a regular basis under OS X 10.5 - it's also got less 3d capable graphics than my 10 year old Pismo. The Vaio is nice enough, but is now my wife's machine, despite my upgrading her desktop PC, as she likes it to shop online, browse Youtube, etc, whilst on the sofa. The Dualcore CPU and 256mb GeForce card are rather wasted now she's stopped playing Medieval Total War, but I'm not one to complain. I don't like the new MacBook, I'm not exactly bowled over by the specs/price of the new MacBook Pro (let's face it, they are basically high-end PC notebooks nowadays), so I could see myself coming round to Alienware again, but the machines aren't as funky as they used to be, as they dropped the rounded "alien face" case in green in favour of a more "tech" orientated all-black system that looks like a Toshiba with lights...it's smart, but not cool, I guess. Still, anything that allows me to use SLi graphics in my lap is fine with me...

 So, whilst it staggers me to even think it, I'd not be buying an Apple for either of my three highest-spec machines. Which, as an Apple/NeXT die-hard, is rather worrying to me - how is it that the MacPro is under-powered, or the new MacBook so uninspiring?

 I think the reason is basically that, in standard trim, these machines are great - they are great for designers, or for the office/studio, where they offer more than enough grunt, combined with ease of use and stability. The problem comes in that the hardware is not cutting-edge - there's no 2GB NVidia 295GTX your MacPro, despite it running 8 Cores and 16GB of RAM, so you end up with weak graphics ability for the cost. Even if you stuff the Mac full of cards, you'd still only get 4 512mb 180GTX cards, which is less than impressive when you consider the machine would be settnig you back £7k or more...

 So once we've wired the house up for high speed wireless and internet and have installed a UPS array in the basement to ensure we don't lose power, what's the point of all this? Well, the Alienware is unashamedly for play-time - it's an ultimate gaming rig to allow games like Crysis or Empire Total War to run at huge detail and with zero frame-rate drop. It's the toy I've always promised myself and never bought...oh, and I love the idea of being able to watch a DVD on one screen, surf the net on another and be messing around in photoshop on a third with no slowdown. Basically, anything that makes me feel like Cypher from the Matrix is fine with me!

 Ok, I have an admission to make - I’m not the guy who was cool at school. In fact, I’m happy to say that I would have fitted the geek label quite well. I was into wargames, Heavy Metal and computers, even though I did play sport and get out of the house once in a while.
 
 I used to avidly read Personal Computer World, instead of caring about football and I used to dream of owning some of the more exotic hardware in order to pursue my ambitions of being the next Steve Jobs or, more likely, Woz. So, it should come as no surprise that as soon as I started to earn some decent money, I started to indulge myself in my favourite dream machines - those made by Silicon Graphics.

 

 I grew up in an age of DOS, when Windows was no further along than 3.0 (if you were lucky) and when having to know your EMS from your XMS and what to do if your himem.sys didn’t work. I like a good command line, but most of all, I like a good OS. I didn’t get to have much exposure to Unix as a kid, but when I did, I loved it.
 
 Here was a multi-tasking OS that was network-savvy and (usually) stable. In Irix, it also had a user-friendly GUI (hell, if my father can watch a tutorial and be editing videos within five minutes, anyone can use it!). More importantly, it was streamlined to be usable by creative-types. It was PERFECT (ok, not perfect, but near as dammit!). There was, however, a slight downside - the cost. In an age when a 386 PC (with 2mb of RAM, VGA graphics, Adlib-clone sound and 50mb hard drive) cost around £1400, the stunning Silicon Graphics Iris Indigo (even in basic spec 33MHz R3000 form), cost roughly £13000. If you wanted the ultimate workstation (an Iris Crimson), the cost would be measured in the £50,000-£100,000 region.

 

 However, even magazines felt that the Indigo was good value, as it far outclassed contemporary PCs (and, to a lesser extent, Macintosh machines) - it offered 3d, video, multimedia, easy networking and great sound and display quality, not to mention outstripping the desktop PC for number-crunching tasks. It would be the ideal computer for me….aside from the fact that I was a broke teenager and there was no way on God’s Green Earth that my dad was going to stump up the cash for me…so I ended up with a  PC that was fine for what it was, but never really floated my boat…then eventually, I migrated to Macintosh (which is no bad thing).

 

 Speaking of Macintosh, my other object of desire when I was a teenager was another Steve Jobs product - the NeXTStation. I know that a lot of people go insane over the NeXTCube (and, let’s be honest, I wouldn’t turn down a Dimension-board-equipped Turbo Cube), but I always liked the elegance of the NeXTStation - in fact, I rather liked the Pizza-box format for a workstation (later on in life, my love of SGI would be rekindled by a reliable little Indy I used whilst working as a software developer). I liked the Color version (although it had less colours than the Color NeXTCube), as it had a crisp display, was responsive enough to be useful and was truly multi-tasking. Oh, and NeXTStep is like Irix but even simpler to use. If you go to YouTube, take a look at this video and then try to think what PCs were like in 1990. In fact, NeXT was so far ahead of the curve that people are only starting to come to grips with the concept of interpersonal computing now, some eighteen years later. No wonder that OS X is basically NeXTStep with a fancy dress on - all of the tools required to be an internet-savvy, collaborative operating system were there waiting.
 

 Think about it - in 1990, most of us were drooling over Atari STs and Amiga 500s. If you had a PC, it was likely to be a 286, or maybe a 386. Only the über-rich had a 486 to play with. Even by the time NeXT released version 3.0 of its OS, in around 1994, you were still unlikely to have access to a PC with a CPU over 33MHz, or with more than 2MB of RAM. Modems were rare and if you had one for your home computer, you might dial in to a bulletin board to swap some ASCII art, or maybe a demo program (which was going to be less than 720k in size - one floppy disk). But here was NeXT (remember that Tim Berners-Lee basically created the modern internet on one of these boxes), talking about sending a “mail” over the “internet” that contained postscript fonts, embedded images, embedded documents (that could be linked so that they updated on every recipients computer automatically if you changed it), as well as the ability to add voice annotation to the email natively (a feature that is both highly useful and yet to be implemented on any “modern” email client that I am aware of). This sort of thing was not far off of science fiction at that point in time.

 

 

 In fact, aside from the processor speed, I cannot think of a better system for actually setting up an office/business user group - document sharing is easy, single documents can be updated and change on every machine on the network that downloaded it automatically (like an offline CMS, almost), the graphic quality was high and the display crisp, the bundled OS applications were actually useful for getting work done and it offered raw computing ability/versatility with the most complete user interface ever made. Oh, and you could literally create a custom database application in ten minutes using the built-in tools. In fact, even today, I’d be tempted to say that, for most work tasks, a NeXT network (possibly with a quick Sun or SGI server for storage and Web Serving) would be an ideal setup from a workflow point of view - after all, with Windows 7 and Google pushing for “cloud computing”, we are merely revisiting the dumb terminal idea with a Web 2.0 veneer. Or catching up with Interpersonal Computing some 18 years after NeXT created it.
 
 NeXT was a glorious failure - it’s elegant hardware was lovingly made, yet outrageously priced. Or that’s the myth anyway - I think when you look at its competitors - SGI, Sun, etc - it was highly competitive in its pricing ($13995 for a maxed-out NextCube Color Turbo with NextDimension board, etc, was the same area as the lowest-spec SGI Indigo, after all). I think the problem was that all the hype in the press was introducing NeXT as the “new Apple”, which meant people, including the same Press, viewed NeXT through consumer-level glasses, thus vilifying the systems as over-priced when compared to a PC (or even a Macintosh). If you take that with a pinch of salt and look at the usability, the value to business (Unix machines tend to be more reliable and stay in use for longer periods than a PC - Macintosh do similar, but to a lesser extent), etc, they worked out rather favourably. Of course, once the hype tarred NeXT as expensive folly, it meant that there was a lack of popular support for the hardware and it quickly withdrew to software-only, before being bought out by Apple as part of Steve Jobs’ return to the company fold. Having said that, even the latest version of OS X is just an evolution of NeXTStep - in fact it’s quite good fun to watch the old videos and then go and see what features have been updated for OS X and, thus, to guess what’s been left out and what might pop up at a later date (voice annotation in email, anyone?).
 
 As a life-long computer geek (hey, I’m not afraid to admit it), I’ve spent a lot of time and some considerable money collecting the systems I lusted after as a teenager, with a few exceptions (I’m still trying to find/beg an SGI Crimson, an SGI Onyx2 or Origin 2000 and a Macintosh Color Classic, for example), but the one I most look forward to sitting down in front of is the NeXTStation Color Turbo, once I can find one (or if some kind soul gives me one!). It’s a machine that was truly ahead of its time and which I am truly fond of. I just wish it had more exposure that wasn’t biased towards the “Steve Jobs blew a billion dollars on making this and it cost four times what a Macintosh did” side of the story - the truth is that NeXT created an OS that was literally ten years or more ahead of the competition, matched it to elegant hardware that worked well. Ok, the CPUs weren’t so fast, but they were quick enough for a workstation - you’d let your server cluster do any rendering, etc.

 The problem NeXT had with their machines was that people viewed them like Macs or PCs, not as high-end workstation for a Unix cluster. Viewed as part of a collaborative workflow with a central render-farm/server, I think that a 15 year-old NeXTStation would still be a viable machine for DTP, software development or scientific work, for example.
 
 I would love to get a NeXTStation for office use, not to mention for the hell of it, but now I haven’t the spare cash (what with a baby due in the next month) to pay the exorbitant rates asked by some people and I’ve yet to find a kindly soul who wishes to donate one to me. I guess that’s one computer nerd dream that will have to remain unfulfilled for the time being…

 I know that we've had the eight-core Mac Pros and the the MacBook Air and, in fairness, the aluminium iMac (a machine I think is stunning, but I really don't like the keyboard), but they aren't, well, new.

Bear with me, as I think this needs some explanation - yes, we have had a myriad new products, but we haven't had anything to change the world in the same way that the original Macintosh did. Or, I suppose, the Macintosh II in the way it overturned the entire print and design industry and made Desktop Publishing mainstream. The iPhone is lovely, especially now it has 3G and GPS, but it's really nothing more than a logical extension of the Newton, although the Newton had handwriting recognition and the iPhone doesn't. I love my Blue Dalmation iMac G3, but the all-in-one form factor and simple, easy-to-use-yet-powerful design ethos are merely an update of the original Macintosh and all successive iMacs are iterative, rather than revolutionary. The Mac Pro is based on the Power Macintosh, which evolved from the Quadra series which grew from the ashes of the Macintosh II, whilst the consumer/low-end systems went from Macintosh to....well, Macintosh Classic, Colour Classic, LC, Performa (essentially reboxing the same technology), to the iMac. All compact, all usefully quick without setting your hair on fire and all pretty well designed and screwed together.

 So where is the new paradigm shift? It's easy to watch the launch of the original Macintosh on youtube and think of it as hokey and rather sweet in a "aww, look at them going mad over something with less power than my phone" manner, but in 1984 the technology being unveiled was a world apart. In those days, even so-called "Personal" computers required expertise to use, as you loaded your games via a command line, or had to use a DOS Prompt to find your text documents and disparate interfaces and menus for your different packages. To put it in context, your PC keyboard used to have a clear plastic flap at the top under which you'd put your inlay (that shipped with each package you used) that told you what the 12 function keys did (at least three commands per key - the key, the key with Shift held and the key with ALT held). The Macintosh changed all that at a stroke. A child could use it, it worked logically and the interface was consistent across all packages. One of the least thought-about and most beneficial things that Microsoft hijacked when they pillaged Apple's IP during the creation of Windows was that idea of a consistent set of commands - CTRL+C for copy, CTRL+S for save, etc.

  It is very hard for those people who grew up after the fallout of the introduction of Macintosh to understand just how far-reaching its impact was - they expect things like copy/paste and drag and drop. They expect their standard key commands to be consistent and they really fail to grasp the fact that all of it, every single thing they now see as "computing" is, in some way, linked back to that little beige box that spoke like Stephen Hawking and played a bleepy version of "Chariots of Fire" when an excitable guy with floppy hair and glasses pulled it out of a bag. Yes, I am sure that people will come out of the woodwork to point out that Xerox Parc had developed the bones of the WIMP (Windows, Icons, Menus, Pointer) interface and that, no doubt, some guy had created a full windowing, multitasking interfaces for UNIX in the 1970s that I don't know about, but the original Macintosh created the desktop computer revolution as we know it.

  The Newton created the first usable PDA (before we even know we needed one) and the Mac Portable was, despite the execution, the first attempt to make a portable computer that was a full equivalent to a desktop machine (remember, at the time you could buy an Collosus PC which had a 10" CRT monochrome screen and an 8086 CPU and a couple of floppy drives and that was about the size of a suitcase, so the Mac Portable wasn't that bad).

So, the question remains, what's the next paradigm shift? Personally, I don't think it's the "cloud", with everything on the web and computers just accessing information and applications when needed - the restriction of bandwidth precludes any idea of it being faster than a decent machine on your desk working with local files. Besides, we already have web-based applications and data storage, so it's nothing new. Touch and gesture control is just a way of integrating the trackpad or mouse to the screen, so it doesn't really bring anything new and whilst we are already seeing some convergence with data push/pull from handheld/phone to web to desktop and back, you could sync your Newton to your Macintosh many moons ago. I think that where we'll see the next revolution will be in convenience. Think about it - at the moment you might have a MacPro or iMac, a MacBook of some kind for working away from your desk and an iPhone/PDA phone for keeping in touch when you are travelling. This means you have at least three devices, but imagine if you had something like and iMac with a Wacom Cintiq (the display/tablet) that acted as your keyboard/input and document "dock". If you wanted to save a web page you drag it off the main screen and onto an area of the "tablet", which might have a keyboard attached (given how thin the new mac keyboard is, it could slide out). When you then go out of the office, you unplug the tablet and take it with you and it's a fully functioning mobile Mac - low power CPU (like a MacBook Air), maybe even built-in 3G, with an iPhone-esque interface for your stored web pages, documents, etc, but which has fully-functioning desktop applications and, say, 20gb of flash drive - enough to store a few tunes, your presentations and your documents for the meeting, all in a tough A4 sized slab that fits in your bag neatly, unlike a laptop - hell it could even have solar cells to top up the battery. If it's got 3G, you could bluetooth a headest to it and make calls, then get back to the office and dock it back to the main part of your Mac where it automatically updates your files with any changes made to the copies on the tablet and recharges the tablet battery.

From a users perspective, your work becomes seamless, you're not having to use USB sticks, or email yourself files to transfer from desktop to laptop and you don't even need a phone. It's nothing new, really, as it's a logical extension of the old Powerbook Duo/Duo Dock system, but I think it's something that would appeal to home users (surf the net from the sofa or stream movies to the tablet whilst the main machine burns tunes to CD or suchlike) and business users, for the reasons described previously, alike.

I know that it's technically not a new paradigm in computing in the same way that the original Macintosh was, but I think that something that is so flexible and useful would become indispensible to consumers, students and professionals and the fact you wouldn't need to physically transfer files from one machine to another takes a lot of the pain out of using a computer for practical tasks and makes it much more acceptable to those resistant to technology. I think it would be the first step towards making the Macintosh as ubiquitous as the TV remote or the microwave - which is no bad thing, as such a product would form a sound base for stronger Pro-grade machines, or even tie-ins with car manufacturers to create in-car Mac/GPS entertainment systems, for example.

After a fairly heavy weekend, this seemed like a sensible suggestion, but I'm willing to hear your point of view!

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!