Interesting, did you get the 6500 new?
Nope. It was actually a third-hand machine.
Then the G3 should impress you more, because it is essentially a refined 603 with improved cache. People forget that the G3 was more evolutionary than revolutionary.
I completely agree. The G3 is a spectacular processor. The only reason why I don't always run to put G3 upgrades into systems is that I like to roughly match systems with their intended software. For example, if I wanted to run apps or games designed for a G3 I would leave that to a B&W or an iMac G3. If I wanted to run apps that fly on a 601/603 I'll leave that to the 6500. I do like to make sure that the systems have maxxed RAM, maxxed external L2 cache (where applicable) and will bump the MHz but I do tend to like to at least keep the machines in the same processor class. Especially with an old Mac collection I don't like having all my PPC machines running with various G3 cards. ("Here is my 8100 ... with a G3 card, my 6500 ... with a G3 card, my 8600 ... with a G3...") The 601, 603, 604 and G3 and G4 all get due representation and have their showcase of matched software.
Just so you know:
OS 9 will only see one CPU at the OS level. There are some applications which will take advantage of the second CPU.
Yep, and I understand. Just as its progeny, the G4, the 604 wasn't fully utilized except for a handful of applications. The 603/G3 were the choice for everyday work and the 604/G4 were the workhorses that supported SMP, had incredibly fast floating point and vector performance that only a handful of apps truly utilized.
