Paul Grammens wrote:
"Ruud Dingemans" <rtech@home.nl> wroteWell, the Mac - which is not a real Mac anymore, it's a Unix box - does not have cutting edge hardware at all.I'm not an expert on it, but I've read that the G4 processor is quite advanced.
Well, it's relatively elegant and efficient, but what it's not is "in a class of it's own" and "a great step ahead of the competition" (certainly not with 3 GHz Intel cpu's out there..). Which is what cutting edge hardware usually is.
If it had the power of POWER4 or NEC's new supercomputer in a personal computer enclosure, THEN it'd be different indeed. But it's not, and given Lisa, that's a slight disappointment - from Apple, we've come to expect more than just elegant design (imho). The Mac is no longer leading technologically, whereas Lisa once did.
for the high-end applications like digital video it's Macs.
Well, that's probably giving it a bit too much credit, Windows still rules the world anywhere pc's are used, but still.
Your point that a Mac is not really a Mac anymore is good- it's not a 680XX processor, and as you say it's a Unix-based OS. That's evolution.
True, although you could argue that using an OS from 1969 and then making it into bloatware - which OS X is, unfortunately, I've run A/UX Unix on an 8 MB SE/30 so I know it can be done *differently* - isn't exactly cutting edge *software* either ;)
Wonder if they could have done that with the Apple II. A 32 bit processor, SVGA resolution, and updates to the GS/OS...
Emulation's kinda the way it probably would've gone, anyway, since adapting the ol' 6502 into 1000 MHz territory and giving it an MMU and FPU would have been "slightly" more difficult ;)
I also wonder why they didn't make a hard disk standard.
Because the Mac needed to make a profit, I'd say. You can't compete with yourself too much.
Regards, Rudy