# Intel Imac vs G5



## gordel music (Feb 6, 2006)

I have not owned a Mac before but I am planning to buy one. Thought the Intel addition sounded like it makes the Imac faster than it was.

A friend has warned me against the Intel because it doesn't run Classic--a program that apparently has some nice features he can help me with.

Does anyone know if the Intels will eventually include this program? 

Also, security was never thought to be a problem on Macs, but in this forum, it seems like that might not be the case? Is it now necessary to get Norton software for Macs?


----------



## VegasACF (May 27, 2005)

gordel music said:


> I have not owned a Mac before but I am planning to buy one. Thought the Intel addition sounded like it makes the Imac faster than it was.


It _is_, as long as the software is written to take advantage of the new processor (it will be dubbed a "Universal Binary" if it is, and this will be highly touted, rest assured). Otherwise it will be the same speed (at best) or slower than a current generation G5 iMac.



gordel music said:


> A friend has warned me against the Intel because it doesn't run Classic--a program that apparently has some nice features he can help me with.


Unless that nice feature is being able to run Mac OS 9.X programs that are about five years old I can't imagine what those features would be. "Classic" is the Mac OS X environment that allows those of us with one foot planted well in the past to keep using our old programs. Those of us who really need to use old programs (in my case because I've got tens of thousands of dollars in audio hard- and software that won't run on anything newer and will not spend the tens of thousands of dollars [or more] to upgrade just because there's something newer), though, still have machines capable of booting into that OS, so it's really just a pacifier for those who want to have the bleeding edge, but also want to be able to hold onto the (ever distant) past.

If you're new to the Mac OS I wouldn't give "Classic" or Mac OS 9.X any more thought than you give to Windows 3.1.

Even those of us who still hold on to such relics also have, and (other than for the specific uses of those "vintage" machines) _rely_ upon machines that run Mac OS X for our day-to-day computing needs (and more). If it weren't for my sizable 1990s investments in gear that now is related to what is only a hobby I'd have no ties to Mac OS 9 whatsoever.



gordel music said:


> Does anyone know if the Intels will eventually include this program?


I highly doubt it. It's more likely that humans will find a use for the appendix (the organ). It's more likely the dodo will suddenly spring to life again. It's more likely we'll be able to extract enough DNA from amber to clone dinosaurs in a laboratory setting... You get the picture. It makes for fascinating fiction (?), but has little bearing on the real world.



gordel music said:


> Also, security was never thought to be a problem on Macs, but in this forum, it seems like that might not be the case? Is it now necessary to get Norton software for Macs?


Smart people plan for the unexpected, regardless of the platform they use. _Any_ operating system is subject to infiltration. "Idle hands are the Devil's tools."

The biggest threat to the Mac OS is from Unix-based trojans. They require the naivete of the end user to do their dirty work.

I'd steer clear of anything "Norton" for Macs.


----------



## gordel music (Feb 6, 2006)

Thanks, Vegas ACF. I appreciate your taking the time to respond. Since I am new to Macs, I don't know what programs I will be using. Is it possible that over the next few years more software will be developed that is only going to work on the Intel Macs (ie: is the G5 likely to be obsolete in another year, taken over by Intels?

Thanks again.

Gordel Music


----------



## linskyjack (Aug 28, 2004)

Of course-----Adobe will be releasing their products in universal (but only over the course of the normal cycle) and so will everybody else. All Macs will eventually be Intel Macs.


----------



## VegasACF (May 27, 2005)

linskyjack said:


> Of course-----Adobe will be releasing their products in universal (but only over the course of the normal cycle) and so will everybody else. All Macs will eventually be Intel Macs.


Well, all _new_ Macs will be. And so it will make sense for programmers to focus on the new Intel-based machines. There will, of course, still be old Macs in existence, that will continue to work as they always have (within reason, of course... Every machine eventually gives up the ghost), there just won't be new software available for them. That doesn't mean they are not competent to do what they've always done. They just won't be adaptable to things that have yet to come down the road.



gordel music said:


> Thanks, Vegas ACF. I appreciate your taking the time to respond. Since I am new to Macs, I don't know what programs I will be using. Is it possible that over the next few years more software will be developed that is only going to work on the Intel Macs (ie: is the G5 likely to be obsolete in another year, taken over by Intels?


No problem. Chances are whatever applications you end up using will be fine (if not now then soon) on the Intel-based Macs. I wouldn't give Classic another thought. It was Apple's way of not pissing off its established user base when Mac OS X came out, though compatibility problems ended up pissing some of them off, anyway. Half a decade has passed since Mac OS X was released, so whatever ill feelings about the change to a Unix-based OS have now migrated to outrage about there being "Intel Inside" the new Macs.

Frankly, I don't give a damn who makes the CPU inside the computer I'm using. I just want it to work the way I expect, and the feel of the Mac OS has always been what worked best for me.

"Obsolescence" is relative. I still know of _major_ studios in LA that are using NuBus-equipped Mac Quadras from 1991 for recording and editing. Why? Because they still work. Why throw something out the window just because something new comes along? Now, if you mean "obsolete" in terms of developers coding for what are soon to be "legacy" machines, yes, they will be obsolete. That's the nature of the beast. When a new paradigm is established everyone adapts to that new paradigm and, for the most part, eschews the ways of old. Ten years from now you'll still find G5s doing what they are currently doing. But, as I mentioned, there soon will be no _new_ software available for them.

That said, if the price is right for a G5 of whatever ilk you are looking and there is software currently available that does what you need it will be tempting to take that plunge, knowing that you're investing in legacy equipment. But be _absolutely certain_ that you are willing to forgo whatever advances come to Intel-based Macs before you make such a purchasing decision. And that's an incredibly hard thing to decide. You have no way of knowing what advances will come. If the current state of the art is sufficient in every way then go for it. If the thought of being locked into the past is in any way scary then consider the new machines.

I went out and got one of the last Macs that could boot into Mac OS 9.X _solely_ because I had so much money invested in Pro Tools TDM hard- and software that simply would not work on a Mac OS X-only machine. It works, and it works well. It wasn't a hard question for me because Digidesign had publicly said that their old hard- and software would _not_ work with the new OS. My thinking was that I've got waaaay too much money invested in this stuff for it to cease to work, I was doing audio for network TV programs on machines that weren't _half_ as capable what I had when I got that machine, so it works for what I need it to do, and for what I'll ever need it to do. That machine is probably less than half as capable as a G5 and Digidesign's HD TDM hard- and software, but it works for what I need it to do, especially now that it's not my means of earning income.

If you have any further questions please don't hesitate to ask.


----------



## gordel music (Feb 6, 2006)

Vegas, in your first response you said stay away from anything Norton (I assume that is synonomous with Symantec). What protection is best and also easy to uninstall?

I twice had to uninstall McAfee off my windows computer, and it was very long, even with phone assistance--had to go through the H Keys one by one--arrrrggghhh.


----------



## VegasACF (May 27, 2005)

Yes, sorry. Symantec is the same. I never got used to calling it anything other than Norton from the olden days. It's sad, because the Norton tools were great pre-OS X.

McAfee Virex for Macintosh is what I'm using. Haven't had any problems.

Uninstalling on a Mac is usually far simpler. Just drag the application to the trash. This will leave a tiny preference file in the System, but it won't cause any problems.


----------



## Killer360 (Mar 17, 2006)

You don't nessesscarily need Classic unless you intend to be using older Macinsoth Software.

I would go with the Intel iMac if I were you.


----------



## gordel music (Feb 6, 2006)

Thanks, 360--that's beginning to seem like the consensus


----------



## [email protected] (Nov 11, 2005)

The Future Is Coming......... OH No! All Apple computers will be Intel machines in the very near future. They are not going to renew the contract with IBM. So buy one now because soon they will all be Intels.


----------



## VegasACF (May 27, 2005)

Mmmkay... Or you could be like the majority of Mac users and not give a damn what's under the hood as long as it runs like a Mac, acts like a Mac, feels like a Mac and looks like a Mac. 

I refer you to my previous responses, gordel music. Best of luck.


----------

