Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Linux Software

iMac Linux 103

Posted by CmdrTaco from the its-heeere dept.
slim sent us linkage to a detailed guide to installing Linux on an iMac. " There are comments about LinuxPPC R4 and R5, but its come a long way. If those iMacs were a few hundred bucks cheaper I still think they'd be fun thinnish linux workstations. And the pretty colors.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

iMac Linux More

iMac Linux

Comments Filter:

  • Hardware Predictability? (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    One great advantage an iMac will have over most $999. PCs is hardware predictability/consistency. As in, there are only 3 HW revs and they're pretty minor in nature. What you get from Packard Bell or Gateway at this price range is going to be whatever motherboard is cheapest this week mated to whatever video card is cheapest mated to whatever drive is cheapest. Which could make them a lot tougher to get up and running.

  • Rev. A iMacs down to $749 (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    You can get a refurb Rev. A iMac from Apple for only $749. A damn sweet OSXS / Linux box if you ask me. Really makes me regret the $600 bucks I just sank into an AMDK6-2 box.

  • Please... (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Yes! Let's all live in a nice closed world where Intel makes all the processors and Microsoft, oops Linux runs all the machines. Oh well. For a while I thought progress was being made in the marketplace but now I see that Linux users are just smarter Windows users with the same mental block towards innovation and open markets. Non-programming Linux users tend to be self-righteous and lazy hacker wannabes who want sophisticated tools for free. That's fine but try to give a little more thought to the bigger picture and what's going on here.
    Code or die. The G3 is an excellent piece of technology. Get with it.
  • It's "Linux Is Not Unix... eXactly...".

  • USB? (Score:1)

    by DrSpoo ( 650 )
    Is that to say USB is fully functional now? Last I heard it was partially working...but not ready for prime time.

  • BSD (Score:1)

    by gavinhall ( 33 )
    Posted by wonderpop:

    Why pay for an iMac? Pay $60 for an SE and run it on that. Oh and, you can get BSD for Mac.
  • Posted by wonderpop:

    An Alpha WHAT? 500? Talk about comparing a Corvette to a Yugo. Of course you would take an Alpha over an iMac. I would take an Alpha over an iMac, and I'm a Mac owner. You really can't compare the two, though.
  • Posted by wonderpop:

    Try this one on for size. Adobe Photoshop 4.01, running an action involving mode conversion, shadows, blurs, and a whole slew of other things, on a 50 meg file, on a Compaq 400, G3/233(basically an iMac), G3/300 and G3 350, all configured as close to equal as possibel(RAM, cache, HD, etc.). The Compaq lost, by a significant margin, to all the machines, including the 233, whixh, as I stated before, is basically a Rev A & B iMac. Now then, I know this isn't Linux, but I have LinuxPPC running on my machine(a G3/233, coincidentally) at home, and it SCREAMS. Not to mention that other forms of Unix, such as NetBSD, run at a fast clip, on an SE/30, which came out in the eighties.
  • Yes, but as Linus said in his recent article on Linuxworld, Linux is NOT Unix. It's a new operating system. And it originally started out on Intel 386 processors. Besides, nowdays the differences between RISC and CISC are very blurred. For instance, the Pentium Pro, PII, and AMD K6 all have "RISC cores"

  • USB? (Score:2)

    by kraxel ( 998 )
    USB keyboard and mouse work fine.

  • ISO (Score:1)

    by Jeff Knox ( 1093 )
    Is there anywhere where i can download and ISO image of the LinuxPPC cd?
  • Hey, I think this is cool. Granted, the iMac may not be the latest hot rod super mega tower, but considering how many people here bitch about beige cases and Wintel... I think the iMacs are kinda cool and perform pretty well. Granted, they're not that expandable - but as a person with a house full of workstations - ever hear about using the network? Share your drives on the machine in the other room. Expand your minds and ideas a little and don't limit yourself to desktop-thinking. As for the price, yeah, they are a bit high.
  • Go here: Good job [apple.com].
    It's far easier to forgive your enemy after you get even with him.
  • https://private.apple.com/cgi-bin/Tango.cgi/hr/web _wizard/queries/wizard_external_pagesNEW .qry?function=DetailScreen&REQUISITION_uid1=100396 3&TITLE_uid1=Technology%20Manager%2DLinu x


    Try this.
    It's far easier to forgive your enemy after you get even with him.
  • Fishtanks are cool, but I'd really like to see a Mac Lavalamp. I was going to hoard this idea for myself, so I could be the first, but here I am outing it, cos I'll never get around to it.

    Or - has anyone done this already?
    --
  • Where there is a G3 processor, there is a fast computer.
    Mmmmmm, not necessarily. I can easily take a G3, work out a 10MHz bus or something, pop in a meg of RAM, no cache, a 40MB ESDI hard drive, and an ISA video card (granted, it would take some serious MB hacking) and have a butt-slow machine. From what I understand, the iMac has the disease common to most store-bought Wintel machines (which Apple managed to avoid until a few years ago): processor-heavy. I got your WinModem right here!
    That still doesn't mean the iMac's aren't decent machines; I think they're an alright idea. I just disagree with pushing them as massive powerhouses.
  • ...I'm connected right now on an iMac running LinuxPPC R4 using linux 2.2.1

  • I know if I was just going to run linux, I could build a PC or buy one from an online dealer for less (BTW, I was surprised that Gateway is bundling Corel WP Office 8 with some of their machines). That's a given. However, my wife and kids don't want to run linux. I don't blame them. The stuff that they want to run doesn't run under Wine yet. It should with VMware, but I haven't acquired that software. I don't want to run Windows if I can get away with it, even on a VM.

    Enter the iMac. The kids love it (the 4yr old takes to it like a duck to water) and the wife thinks a red one would be cute. It runs all their software, doesn't take up a lot of space, and I don't have to pay the M$ tax.

    Now that a form of linux is available for it, I would be happy with it too. It would join my SE/30 dual booting MacOS & Linux.

    I am going to buy one sometime this year. I was disappointed that Apple decided to not include the Irda and the Mezianne(sp) ports/slot on the newer ones, especially since one can get scsi cards for the internal slot.

  • If it's anything like the mac68K version of linux (and from the web page it sounds like it), you will still need MacOS to boot into linux.

  • what?. (Score:1)

    by ksheff ( 2406 )

    Where did you get that idea? The first form of Unix that I ever used was on a M68K Sun workstation. I don't think the pdp-8 that unix was first booted on would be considered a RISC machine either. It doesn't really matter if it's a CISC or RISC cpu.

  • Is the method for setting the OpenFirmware varaibles in a HOWTO someplace? I guess the iMac Linux page assumed that most people would be dual booting. If it was mentioned, I must have skipped over it. It's unfortunate that something like BootX or Lilo doesn't exist for the M68K macs. If I'm wrong, I'd love to have it.

  • No kidding, if your gonna run Linux, run it on the system is was originally made for, PC's!!!

    Admittedly, you have a point here. Linux is not a cross-platform OS. It's a PC operating system which happens to run on other platforms too. Take a look at any Linux FTP site of sufficient size and you'll see it: Intel-only binaries, source which only works right on Intel, etc.

    Whats the point in paying a ton for a Mac to run Linux on it when you can save a load of money and buy a PC and install Linux.

    It's called "you get what you pay for." You pay more for a Mac, but you get much better hardware. Couple that with Linux (especially once they get a hold of the stuff in OSX, if not the code then at least data) and you have one seriously kickass machine.
  • What you are talking about is known in PPC circles as booting via Open Firmware. LinuxPPC has always been able to do that. Until BootX came out, that's what I did; now I just use BootX because I don't intend to ever switch exclusively to Linux. That's how CHRP and PreP boxes (and BeBoxen, if I'm not mistaken) still do it. And, by the way, BootX is GPL'd.

    You do need MacOS for MkLinux, but you don't for LinuxPPC.
  • ...because they're so unexandable, unless you format the drive immediately after you get it, you have to wipe out what's there. You can't attach a Jaz drive to back everything up, or to install Linux on.

    On the plus side, the video is slowly getting faster, and three-button mice are available for them, which is good, since right now you have to use the one-button mouse with the "=" and "[clear]" keys on the numeric keypad to emulate middle and right click!
  • At least, you could with the bondi blue ones. :)
  • Darn, 403'd... Then there's an error that says that the error document also has forbidden access too! DOH! Methinks someone is modifying the server on the fly in response to the /. tidal wave hitting it at the moment.....
  • Does anyone know where to find the colored iMacs. They are extremely back ordered and the colored versions are impossible to find.

    As a side note, if you are in the Montana area, Vanns [vanns.com] is advertising that they are selling iMacs. DO NOT buy from them. Their sales people are rude and to make matters worse they *LOST* our computer.
  • Okay, so, you've turned me out already as an Apple user. I bought two of the Rev B iMacs at the beginning of the year, one for me, and one for my kids. I have been very pleased with them. I have 96 Meg of RAM in my machine, and a ZIP-100. It may be an "unexpandible" machine, but I haven't yet found anything I want to hook to it that I cannot get a USB version of. I do not have Linux on it yet, but I do run both MkLinux and LinuxPPC on a pair of 7500/132 machines, and they both perform really well.

    My opinion is that an iMac is the best computing value for the money. And a 300MHz machine at a cheaper price is rumored to be due mid-April.
  • I believe it should work as well as any other modem. The iMac modem is not a "bus" modem. It is a serial modem that is wired to a serial port on the processor card via a standard DIN-8 connector. Pretty much a generic Rockwell modem, I believe.
  • Apple has historically always claimed that you buy the hardware and tehy essentially give away the OS that comes with it.

    Therefore, you'd get back your refund request with a cancelled stamp.

  • Yes, there's a whole page on it...

    http://www.linuxppc.com/userguide/new/

    sorry... no HREF tag.. I'm being lazy...

  • BSD (Score:1)

    by jtn ( 6204 )
    The NetBSD group has had much success in netbooting (and locally booting now) both rev A and B iMacs with NetBSD/macppc.

  • USB? (Score:2)

    by jtn ( 6204 )
    USB is (and has been) working fine under NetBSD.

  • Ihack (Score:1)

    by erwin ( 8773 )
    I think it'd look cool in our lobby as a kiosk, esp. running Linux. A double joke on the Windoze and Mac freaks around here...

    But, no, it's definatly not worthing trying to use as a workstation. If it was $499....well, maybe.

    LinuxPPC, however, rocks. I've got a LinuxPPC box next to two RedHat boxes, and they're all cool. Hardware is irrelevant if you've got the right OS.

  • No kidding, if your gonna run Linux, run it on the system is was originally made for, PC's!!! Whats the point in paying a ton for a Mac to run Linux on it when you can save a load of money and buy a PC and install Linux.

    Long Live Slackware!!!
  • Why in the world would you want to be forced to buy expensive Mac hardware when you can buy even better PC hardware cheaper? What is the point? So Linux can run on any type of system, that doesn't mean that one is better than the other.
  • It is certainly true that the Mac OS will cripple an otherwise speedy machine, but my impression is that with LinuxPPC, it screams. Remember that it is a RISC chip, and is a fundamentally superior architecture to x86.

    Remember also that Mac OS X, due by the end of the year, will be built on a real Unix kernal, and will feature premptive multitasking and protected memory. So once it is out, the iMac will easily outperform a similarly priced PC.
  • On the other hand, it makes a kick-ass second computer, because it has built in 10/100 Base-T ethernet. Hook it up with a crossover cable, and set it copying overnight, and use the more traditional ports of the older machine to attach a zip, Jaz, Superdisk, or whatever. This saves the added expense of a floppy drive, scsi, ADB, and serial ports, which you don't need if you have another ethernet-enabled computer. Remember also that pretty much everything it comes with on its hard drive is on the included CD's.
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • I believe the previous poster was referring to universities with standards. ;-)
  • The only reason you Linuxers need fast CPUs at all is for recompiling your kernel every night, or for playing those unaccelerated X-windows games.

    I have two 68030-based machines that are plenty fast enough for 80% of what I do, one Mac and one BSD box. I have a PPC 601 and a P5-90 that are plenty fast enough in MacOS or Windows (resp.) for 95% of what I do. Oh, yeah, they both run Linux in alternate HD partitions. Linux is fast enough too.

    If an iMac isn't fast enough for 100% of your computing needs, my friend, you are not sane.
  • no it is not Unix, It just has a unix like interface and uses GNU tools. Linux "is" it's own operating system, and a damn good one at that.

    ArsonSmith
  • Now only if we could get a refund for MacOS...


    ---
  • Actually, I think Mac people and Linux people have a lot in common -- it has to do with a need for personal utility and elegance over what is popular.

    My last computer was a Mac, which I got for the simple reason that my brother was getting a PC, and I figured it would be good for us to have different computers so we could use each other's computers and be "platform independent" users.

    It turned out to be a good choice for me because I got into alot of layout & design work in college -- and most of the software I was using in class and at work was on Macs.

    Now I work on different things and want a UNIX-y environment to play in and do Web development -- so my new computer is the best computer I could find for the things I'm working on now. It happens to be some Linux-y things and a bit of Be thrown in, and I went for an AMD chip setup. But if the iMac had been what was best for my new projects, I would have invested in that.

    Who cares what someone else thinks about my computer? I get to make the choice that's best for me -- isn't that what the whole Linux/[Open|Free] Software movement is about?


    -sk

  • Underperforming....
    It blows most Wintel crap right out of the water.
    An iMac with linux is as fast as a Celeron 300a at 300 Mhz.
    And if you look at the price of it nowadays, it's is cheaper than a similary configured Wintelbox.
  • The Windows Refund Day was based on the fact that Microsoft was forcing other companies into putting Windows on every system. If Compaq or Dell made their own operating system, they'd have every right to install it on their own computers. Hence, since Apple makes their own brand of computers, they have every right to install whatever the hell they want.

    Strangely enough, IBM's arm has been twisted by MS so bad that they don't even install OS2 on any of their systems anymore.
  • Yeah, so Linus says that Linux isn't Unix. That doesn't make it so. (Yes, I know that he made it, so he can call it whatever he wants, but remember, "A rose by any other name would still smell just as sweet." It's close enough to Unix that for practical purposes, it is Unix.)

    Maybe they should drop the 'x', and call it LINU: Linu Is Not Unix. :-)

    -Snibor Eoj
  • Overpriced and underperforming? A $900 box that can beat the crap out of any $2K Intel PC? Okay then.

    LinuxPPC on the iWhack is faster than RedHat on a Pentium II/350. LinuxPPC on the G3/400 Server is faster than RedHat on a Xeon box.

    Yeah, you're definitely not being open-minded.
  • (Hey, somebody had to say it).

    Good point about clustering them. Built in 100 Ethernet, too.

    Not that you need all those CRTs in the cluster (hmm, put them together into a really big multi-headed X display...), but at $800 a pop for original iMacs or refurbs, the nodes are pretty cheap.
  • The MacOS is not optimized for speed on a PPC. Have they even (with 8.5) got all of the low level 68000 code out of it yet? (MacOS for years has been using their original 68K code in some of the low level routines - toolkit, I/O, etc - which means it has to run through the MacOS's 68K emulation layer on PPC machines. Bleah!)

    Even if all the code is now PPC native, the architecture of MacOS was originally optimized for speed on 68K-based machines, not todays machines.

    It also depends how you're judging. Going by the "feel" of the speed of the GUI is not the way to do it, because the Mac's GUI is deliberately slowed down so as to be (in the Apple user interface designers' opinions) more friendly, especially to newbies.

    With a pure native PPC OS, like Linux (or AIX, on IBM's PPC machines) or OS X or (at one time) BeOS, the PPC screams.
  • Maybe when the price of an IMAC goes down to 30$ I will buy one and give it a try.

    --
    If Microsoft gave away there software for free and it was designed correctly it would be pretty cool
  • Why complain about Mac OS? The article is about running Linux on it.

  • Why is it whenever you see an anti-mac article they have to resort to inane childish comments? You can call iMacs garbage all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that you cannot get a PC with as many features at the same performance from a reuptable company at that same price.

    Of course, pointing out this fact is gonna create lots of flames along the lines of claiming that this isnt true-- but if you look, each example will be a slower, older PC, or from a fly-by-night company with no quality standards, or for a machine with a much slower processor than the iMac's PowerPC.

    I know its irritating that Apple has been making kick butt machines all these years-- here's a suggestion: Get over your jealousy, come out of the closet and go buy one.

    BitGeek
  • I have an iMac, I also have a linux box and I am definetly going to look into this!!
  • I have an iMac and a linux box and I tried to install linux and f##ked up my iMac, now that I have detailed instructions I'm there.
  • I've used an iMac with MacOS. It was an exercise in frustration. Its speed left MUCH to be desired. Compared to even a Pentium 233, it was not as responsive (even though it might have outperformed a P233 on a straight CPU benchmark). Plus, MacOS is total crap, not even providing decent multitasking.

    So, my question is, how does this thing stack up against the CPUs from Chipzilla (Intel) when running a common OS (Linux)? Also, how is its graphics performance compared to, say, a Matrox Millenium II? And don't forget disk access speed..

    Remember that benchmarks are more than just raw CPU speed. I want to see benchmarks of real-world apps..

    Speaking of which, is there a way to script a graphical benchmark in X? (i.e. launch program X, scroll around, move the window, etc)
  • How is that a fair comparison? Photoshop was written for the Macintosh first, and therefore it is understandable that it takes better advantage of MacOS than Windows. Not to mention that running anything under MacOS or Windows is pretty irrelevant to the question that I had.. that was, how do they compare running the same application on the same OS? I am far more interested in how fast Netscape renders Slashdot, than in how fast Photoshop does a transform. Or, perhaps, you could show me the numbers comparing gimp on Linux/PPC vs. gimp on Linux/x86. BTW, everyone says the same thing: "Linux on my PPC screams".. but what does that mean? Linux on my PII/400 "screams" also.. I want numbers!
  • Unix was designed to take advantage of the new and amazing magnetic core memory that was avaliable in the early 1970s. It ran just fine on the Motorolla 68000 series chips in the 80s, it runs fine on PowerPC chips now.

    A lot has changed since then; UNIX has become essentialy a set of interfaces instead of a specific implementation and portability has been really great. But why not? Unix has been with us since the days of 8-bit address spaces, the central design ideas have proved to be almost immutable.

    Well designed software should really not care about the platform it's running on at all (see also: Java), so what does it matter if Linux runs on i386 chips or PPC chips or MIPS chips (like in the Cobalt Qube servers) or Alpha chips (like Compaq sells with Linux on them) or even Sparc chips on Sun hardware (which *is* expensive)? I like to think of Linux running on the iMac (but not my iMac, I need to run Office ;-) as a really good thing.
  • the 68K Macs don't have Open Firmware. PCI-generation PowerMacs can boot directly to another OS.
  • iMacs are perfect as X terminals (well, not perfect, but pretty good). They're compact, they have very good monitors, they have more than enough resources to run an X server cleanly. Granted, you can do more than just run X on the things. But when Moore's law knocks down *any* machine you buy, you'll want something that still has some use while obselete.
  • I ordered mine in early february, and even though I got what apparently is the least popular color (tangerine!), it still took like a month from the time they cashed my check to the time they shipped it. That was direct from apple, though. But I hear nowadays that everyone is out of all the new ones. Good luck.
  • This sort of "oh it's outdated, oh it's like cutting your lawn with a scythe, oh it's like running an 8088" is the kind of thing that shows up from pro-Windows users.

    And did you actually read my post? My point was that when the iMac becomes unusably obselete as a workstation (even if you think that's the case right now), it will still be well-suited to be an X terminal. It's better suited to be an X terminal than most other computers. Such as, say, a compaq presario or other random PC, because it has a good monitor, a combined monitor/cpu, and because it's neat looking.
  • LinuxPPC was actually originally developed for CHRP and PREP based PPC machines using openfirmware. There is a method (BootX) to boot into Linux from MacOS (this method is prefered for most people who dual boot) but the other method (setting OpenFirmware variables in PRAM) allows you to boot without MacOS.
  • I agree. Yes, PPC machines are more expensive and may not run your favorite games and desktop productivity apps, but if you need speed, RISC is the way to go. For a lot of scientific computing and engineering applications the PPC chip is vastly superior to anything in the Intel world. True, the imac is not very expandable, but I really don't think too many people will be running servers off of them - there are plenty of G3 towers for that. What this lack of expandability does do is give you a small transportable desktop quality machine which does FFTs damn fast and doesn't cost more than $1000 -which is very good thing. Now that it runs Linux (and MacOS X) it has the stability to be used all over the place.

    More importantly, I believe that supporting alternative CPU architechtures is just as important as supporting alternative OSes. If Intel had no competition, it is doubtful that they would be upping chip speeds and dropping prices like they are. And RISC and other architechtures provide fundamental advantages over CISC. The advances in RISC and high-performance chips work their way into every desktop in a few years (backside caches, pipeling, etc...) with an Imac you can have these advantages NOW and at a reasonable price.
  • pink imac = i-Whack :)
    all hail UF!
  • I couldn't agree more. Everyone here seems to have a different opinion.. most of which contradict the following day.. it would be really neat to have 2, let us know how it goes. =)

    'Besides, who can resist having their favorite colored computer sitting on their desk to enjoy looking at?'

    Well now that all depends, i think a pink iMac running linuxPPC, and some wacky color GTK+GNOME/E theme stuff... well.. you know =)

  • yes in your opinion it does..

    one fact though, 10 of those 'things' clustered
    would smoke the pants off your alpha.
  • God knows I've had my share of but-ugly, but functional machines
    (My latest is a 486 held together by superglue and duct tape, running debian).

    But the iMac is so pretty, I've been dreaming of setting it up as my desktop machine with Linux on it ever since I saw the first pitcure of it.
    Compilations can always be done on a Pentium thing in a closed, anyway...
  • Personally I have been pretty anxious to get my iMac. There are all kinds of mixed reviews about them, but isn't that the case with any machine? All you can really do is try one out for yourself. There's no use in believing what everybody else has to say. I'm excited about getting one and considering getting 2 to run linux on one of them. I really don't know how LinuxPPC runs, but shouldn't the linux community be happy that you can run linux on more than just intel based machines?

    Besides, who can resist having their favorite colored computer sitting on their desk to enjoy looking at? Not me! I think giving linux a try on one is not a bad idea. Like everyone has mentioned, the first revisions are pretty cheap now =)
  • I have no understanding of why Linux advocates complain so much about running *LINUX* on apple hardware. Seems to me like the more exposure for the *OS* the better. You can make your proprietary bla bla bla argument all you want, but is only running Linux on Intel and Alpha (and there are so many daily users who need Alpha boxes) what you really want?

    Yo!

  • BSD (Score:2)

    by Bart Fox ( 29366 )
    BSD is here for iMac.
    While the iMac isn't officially supported for this use by Apple (and since when was that a big deal to ./ folks?) Mac OS X Server runs quite well. It's BSD 4.4.
  • Yes they're not the greatest computers ever made, but there is one good reason why a linux port to them is cool: People buy iMacs.

    Alphas and pIII's may be better/faster/ have more geek credibility, but if linux wants to gain users in the mainstream computing sector then making it run on mainstream (high profile, popular, generally cool) machines.

    If you dont like them, dont buy 'em, but its still a usefull addition to the Linux stable.

  • Can anyone confirm if the iMac built-in modem works with LinuxPPC and ppp? Or does a list exist what works and doesn't work with the LinuxPPC RC5 and iMacs? I was thinking about using an iMac as a primary Linux box.
  • Um, time for you to stop quoting Jobs and look at actual numbers, perhaps?
  • RISC is *not* fundamentally better than CISC. Yes, it means a cleaner CPU design, which means that your engineers don't go crazy trying to design it, but most optimizations which people only thought possible on RISC are also done on CISC machines. CISC has its advantages, too: smaller memory and disk footprint, which leads to better cache performance. Yes, x86 architecture is insane, but that doesn't necessarily mean it will have lower performance.

    And I doubt a machine from Apple will *ever* outperform a similarly priced commodity product. The rest of the world has the advantages of mass production and competition, which Apple fears greatly.
  • There are various cost cutting factors in the iMac, so you can't claim that another G3 of the same speed will perform the same as an iMac.

    Linux also runs on Mac SEs, as shown by Debian.
  • If 640 KB isn't big enough for 100% of your computing needs, my friend, you are not sane.
  • It's too easy to disarm Mac because most have never used one in a deadline driven production environment, and that's where it shines. The hardware is well engineered and reliable and highly integrated with the OS ...it's been evolving that way for 15 yrs. Most of the OS code is PPC now. Next built (v8.6) is 100% PPC plus a new microkernal to boost threading. And MacOS v10 will be a new breed altogether.

    The UI in Mac is very good and casual use won't reveal it's power. It's not right to just say the UI is "deliberately slowed down", 68k emulation aside, the UI opens windows and moves files plenty fast and has responsive feel. many of it's refinements are poorly mimicked or entirely absent in Windows (the usual comparison). Linux is very happy on these PPC's but plopping a Mac or Next or other funky interface on top is just a paint job, it not the refined workplace the MacOS provides.

    A big engine will make a car go like hell but if your driver's seat is a metal box with a nice paint job you won't want to drive it often ... I like to drive.

    Failings aside, when you buy a Mac/iMac/G3 (same diff) you buy an optimized and highly integrated package. Linux on iMac would be a hoot. It is on my 601. And so will MacOS v10. I can only hope Apple works Linux into it's world view in an acceptable way.

    good read on PPC directions and benchmarks:
    http://www.MacKiDo.com/Press/TechResponseStateOf PPC1.html
  • Those imac's are pretty cool but i'll stick with my pc because i can get almost any app or game without having to pay fot it...
  • Okay, enough with the iMac trashtalking. Sure, they may be overhyped, but they definitely do NOT underperform.
    No matter what you guys say, it still has a G3 processor. Where there is a G3 processor, there is a fast computer.
    Plus, running Linux, it should kick many a computer's behind. Forget that, a first generation PowerPC makes an awsome Linux machine.
    And as far as cost, you can get a first generation iMac for less than $800 new.
  • Aaaaarrrrrrggggghhhhhhh

    Unix in general, was designed to run on RISC based computers. "PC"s are CISC.
    PowerMacs (including the iMac) are RISC.

Slashdot Top Deals

What is research but a blind date with knowledge? -- Will Harvey

Close