3 ms·

Why "not equivalent"? Both are top-tier workstation options of their times. But... the UX of PowerMac G5 is lot more pleasant and everything feels lot more res

• DaiPlusPlus 3y ago
  > But... the UX on PowerMac G5 is lot more pleasant and everything feels lot more responsive Heh, that reminds me of when a friend of mine invited me over to show-off his hand-restored Mac (early-1990s-ish - I think it was a Performa 520 or 575?) and despite the lack of double-buffered graphics there were hardly any painting artifacts but the most striking thing was just how smooth and responsive everything felt - obviously the fact it's a CRT helps a lot. When the world moved away from computer CRTs to TFTs we also went from 70-85Hz to 60Hz everywhere - and I swear I definitely can "feel" 60Hz vs. 85Hz - so I'm looking forward to monitors gradually shifting towards 120Hz or 144Hz (or higher?) because that definitely helps with responsiveness and snappiness, even with double-buffering and desktop composition.
• bzzzt 3y ago
  > Why "not equivalent"? The Mac pro is just a Mac studio with a "PCI express expansion chassis" bolted on which is of no use to most people. The price says Apple doesn't want to sell a lot of those machines, they probably only fitted a M2 CPU in an old Mac pro chassis to tick off the 'entire range migrated to Apple silicon' promise.
• oefrha 3y ago
  An entry level cheese grater or trash can definitely wasn’t top end of their times. Middle end parts in a top end case, sure.