- Other Mac Stuffimac G4 G5
- Other Mac Stuffimac G4 User
- Other Mac Stuffimac G4 Pro
- Other Mac Stuffimac G4 Specs
Home | Deals | Tech Specs | Articles | Groups | Software | Support | @LowEndMac
Apple The new Apple silicon-based Mac Pro could bring back memories of the Power Mac G4 Cube. Gurman also reports that Apple is working on two Mac Pro models. One of the Mac Pro models will an.
The Low End Mac Mailbag
Dan Knight - 2007.05.17
Another half dozen readers weigh in on the pros and cons of G3support in Leopard - and whether Core Image might be such animportant technology that a lot of G4 users will be left out in thecold. - Tip Jar
The Time of the G3 Is Done?
- World's Fastest G3, Core Image Unsupported in Most G4 Macs, and Other Thoughts on OS X 10.5, Dan Knight, Low End Mac Mailbag, 2007.05.17. Where a 1.1 GHz G3 really rocks, too many G3 Macs in use to drop them with Leopard, and whether Core Image might be the technology that determines which Macs can't run OS X 10.5.
- You can automatically or manually add subtitles in.ass and.srt formats. It offers smoother playback while other media players show a video jitter, choppy, or stalling. Cisdem best Mac video player contains a built-in video converter, allowing you to media files to MP4, M4V, MOV, MP3, M4A, iPhone, iPad, Samsung, and so on.
- Wrapping Up: Transfer Files From Mac to Mac. If the two Macs are in the vicinity of each other and the file to be transferred is relatively small, AirDrop is your best bet. However, for larger files, Thunderbolt cables or File Sharing seem to do the job just perfect.
- The PowerPC can not boot Mac OS X via USB. That's a problem of Mac OS X drivers. A cheap USB card will not fix the issue. Why don't you use Firewire to boot the machine? Only Intel Macs can boot via USB on Mac OS X. The built-in USB 1.1 ports also are very slow when it comes to booting Mac OS 9, and may not respond for a long time.
Tim Larson says:
Dan,
Tell Joseph Burke that if he has any of those B&W G3s thathe thinks can't even be given away, I'd really like to have one. Mymain home server is a beige G3/300,and while the upgrade to a top-end (450MHz) G3 tower would be noticeable, (to a guy on a shoestringbudget) it isn't worth the $75 I see these things still sellingfor.
Tim
World's Fastest G3 Power Mac
Scott Cook writes in response to The Time of the G3 Is Done:
Ha, Mr. Burke just gave me a laugh. I had a 1.1 GHz G3 Yosemite and a 466 MHz G4 Digital Audio sitting side by side. MyYosemite would run circles around my Digital Audio for everythingexcept audio/video encoding. For video encoding the G4 was overtwice as fast. For audio encoding the G4 was a little faster. Imostly do audio/video now, so I just sold the G3 to my friend theother day and kept the G4.
I used to do a lot of bulk mailing to radio stations from myhuge AppleWorks database. That G3 was by far the fastest computerI've ever used for doing looong mail merges in AppleWorks, whichisn't AltiVec or multiprocessor aware. The Digital Audio takes atleast twice as long to do the mail merge and create all the printimages so I can address the envelopes.
This has to be the reason God invented computers. I can't evenimagine how they used to do bulk mailing or radio servicing in theold days. I sold the G3 for $450, by the way. My friend is thrilledwith it so far. I was just talking to him about it today, in fact.Apparently the world's fastest and (according to Mr. Burke) rarestG3 is still in demand? ha ha
You don't need to publish this. I just thought you might get alaugh out of it like I did.
Did I start this G3 on Leopard debate? (laugh) Sorry about thatDan!
Scott Cook
Reluctant Radio
Reluctant Radio
Thanks for sharing your experience, Scott.
Those who would just as soon see Apple drop G3support are invariably those who do high-end tasks that need thehorsepower of a G4 or beyond. They fail to recognize that for a lotof things - the kind of things most of us do most of the time likeemail, browsing the Web, and writing - there's no significantbenefit from AltiVec, dual processors, or AGP graphics. CPU speedand drive speed are more important factors.
So what compelling reason would Apple have forpreventing them from running Leopard and the next versions of Mailand Safari?
Dan
Scott Cook replies:
I'm sure I needed a G4. I could have continued doing audio workwith my 1,100 MHz G3, but video work was prohibitively slow, evenon short shows. The G4 has truly amazing performance on videoencoding compared to the G3. AltiVec is the difference, of course.Other than that, they're similar processors.
When encoding video, my 466 MHz G4 was over twice as fast as my1,100 MHz G3. My 1,100 MHz G3 did everything exceptaudio/video over twice as fast as my 466 MHz G4, which is rightin line with the difference in processor speed. I did a veryunscientific study encoding audio podcasts one night when I wasbored. I encoded the same one hour MP3 audio podcast on all thedifferent machines I had available here at that time. This is whatI found:
- 500 MHz G3 = 4.5x
- 600 MHz G3 = 6.5x
- 1,100 MHz G3 = 9.2x
- 466 MHz G4 = 11.4x
- 3,400 MHz P4 = 11.6x
The G3s behaved as I expected. The faster the processor, thefaster they encoded. The G4 and P4 blew me away though. The P4 isover 7 times as fast as the G4 (clock speed) but just barelymanaged to squeak past it. I wasn't expecting that. I rememberhearing people say the G4 was at least 7-8 times faster than the P4for audio/video, but I confess that I never really believed ituntil I did this.
I wished I had the slowest G4, the 350 MHz Power Mac, to testalongside the fastest G3, the 1,100 MHz PowerLogix upgrade PowerMac. That would have been fun to see if the slowest G4 could beatthe fastest G3 in audio encoding. Has anyone ever run that test?I'm quite certain the slowest G4 would beat the fastest G3 real badat video encoding, but audio would probably be a good race.
Scott,
Thanks for the additional info. AltiVec indeedmakes a world of difference for audio/video work, but there areother architectural issues at work as well. The G4 has moreefficient memory access when used on a motherboard that supportsit, which is every G4 Power Mac except for the 350-400 MHz PCI model.
Simple math (350 x 11.4 / 466) estimates a 350 MHzG4 would score about 8.5x, so the slowest G4 Power Mac wouldprobably be a bit slower than your 1.1 GHz upgraded G3 - but thesecond slowest G4 Power Mac (400 MHz) would probably outperformit.
As for comparing the G4 and P4, that's a whole'nother story. There are not only vast architectural differences,but also different operating systems, different CPU/memoryarchitectures, different software (iTunes for Mac and iTunes forWindows may work the same, but under the hood they are different,and iTunes for Windows may not be nearly as optimized as the Macversion), and different overall hardware (the PC may have a muchslower hard drive, for instance).
Still, for this particular application, you'veshown the danger of relying on MHz alone to predict how fast acomputer will be: A 466 MHz G4, 3.4 GHz P4, and hypothetical 1.33GHz G3 would all have about the same encoding speed.
Now imagine how fast a dual 1 GHz G4 system mightbe for the same task. And a Power Mac G5/2.5 GHz Quad. And then the8-core 3 GHz Mac Pro. Of course, at some point you just can't readand write the files any faster....
Dan
Too Many G3 Macs in Use for Apple to Drop AllSupport
Alexander 'Sasha' Ivanoff writes:
Dear Dan,
I am a high school student who uses a MacBook Pro. But my momstill uses an iMac (Summer2001). Although 10.4 runs a tad bit slow on her iMac, it isstill a reliable workhorse, and some 600/700 iMac G3s still go fora nice, yet small premium. Many public schools still use iMac G3sand will continue to do so for the next few years. Also rememberthat the iMac G3 sold until March of 2003 and the iBook G3 sold until September of 2003,which makes them only four years old for the youngest models.
I also strongly oppose Apple's strict requirements for hardware.I don't see Microsoft restricting which machines can run Vista.Theoretically you could install Vista Home Premium on an IBMThinkPad 600, albeit it would run extremely slow.
I am also hurt that Apple stopped selling the original AirPortcards in 2004. At-home WiFi was only taking off at that time.
However, some machines are just way past their age, but it wouldbe cool to see a Blue and Whiterunning 10.5.
That is just my argument, and I still have many of them.
Sincerely,
Alexander 'Sasha' Ivanoff
Alexander 'Sasha' Ivanoff
Sasha,
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I agree thatit's too early for Apple to stop supporting Macs they were stillselling in 2003. Let's hope Apple feels the same way.
As for the original AirPort cards, the entireindustry moved away from 802.11b to 802.11g and no Macs made in2004 supported the original card, so once inventory was depleted,it made sense for Apple to discontinue it. The downside is thatthese cards sell for a premium - often US$70-100 - as they are theonly internal option for those older Macs.
The modern alternative is a WiFi adapter thatplugs into a computer's USB port, most of which don't seem to beMac compatible, or the ethernet port, which tend to work withWindows PCs, Macs, and game consoles. Google for 'wireless ethernet adapter mac' and you should findseveral options.
Dan
Best Use of Engineering Resources
Pete Gontier follows up on Leopard's Backward Compatibility:
I should clarify that my main point here is that the effortinvolved in offering Leopard for older machines is not just amatter of clicking a few check-boxes in Xcode. It's a big dealinvolving testing and engineering resources which could otherwisebe invested in potentially more profitable activities. Whether thisbig deal is worth it to Apple is another question entirely.
I would argue nobody on the outside of thefirewall has numbers good enough to be able to tell Apple what todo.
I would argue nobody on the outside of the firewall has numbersgood enough to be able to tell Apple what to do. I don't have anyproblem with people trying to predict what Apple will do, but Ihave to draw the line at 'Apple would be stupid not to...' or'Apple should...' because nobody has better numbers than thoseApple has.
- Pete Gontier
<http://www.pete.gontier.org/>
<http://www.pete.gontier.org/>
Pete,
You're right. We're only making educated guesses.Still, we have every right to call Apple stupid when it doessomething stupid - like the firmware block they installed onexisting blue & white G3 PowerMacs to block G4 upgrades and the changes in OS X thatmade it incompatible with RAM that had worked perfectly underOS 9.
Dan
Core Image Hardware Compatibility
Joseph Burke says:
You state in response to my most recent email that 16 MBgraphics cards support Core Image. They do not. My Digital Audio came with an ATI Rage Pro 16MB card, and when I would click on 'About this Mac' and then video,it said Core Image, no. When I installed my flashed Radeon 9700, itsaid Core Image: yes. Here is the official list of supported cardsfrom Apple's Core Image page
Hardware Support
ATI and Nvidia logos
When a programmable GPU is present, Core Imageutilizes the graphics card for image processing operations, freeingthe CPU for other tasks. And if you have a high-performance cardwith increased video memory (VRAM), you'll find real-timeresponsiveness across a wide variety of operations.
Core Image-capable graphics cards include:
- ATI Mobility Radeon 9700
- ATI Radeon 9550, 9650, 9600, 9600 XT, 9800 XT, X800 XT
- Nvidia GeForce FX Go 5200
- Nvidia GeForce FX 5200 Ultra
- Nvidia GeForce 6800 Ultra DDL, 6800 GT DDL
None of these cards was ever available with less than 64 megsand some were only available with 128 megs in Mac Edition. Thereare no 16 MB video cards that are Core Image capable, onboard or ina slot. The Radeon 7500 installed on the 900 MHz iBook can't doit.
I wouldn't count on the Nvidia FX Go5200 or 5200Ultra as beingviable Core Image cards, either. Nvidia touted the 5200 as the onlyDX9 compliant chipset in it's price range at one time, but it ranso slowly that it really wasn't useful for DX9 graphics, even with256 megs of memory. It was strictly a propaganda move to one up theRadeon 9200. It probably won't do Core Image well, either. TheGo5200 chipset installed on some Apple machines also uses vampirevideo, which will slow performance of those machines attempting torun Core Image dependent applications even further.
Someone mentioned that the value of G3 machines will plummet ifApple drops G3 support. Can they plummet any further? You canalready get G3 Power Macs about $50 shipped on eBay, less if youbuy locally. I've already seen them on Freecycle. G3 iMacs aren'tfar behind. Only the fastest models are managing to retain any sortof resale value these days. Snow iBooks can be had for $200-$300,so most of their depreciating is already done, as well. My adviceto anyone who thinks their G3 may be outdated soon is to grab a G4Digital Audio, Quicksilver, or a Titanium PowerBook now while theprices are still falling.
Joseph,
You're right: No 16 MB graphics card supports CoreImage. But you're wrong in claiming I said any did. What I saidwas:
'The fastest G3 iMac ran at 700 MHz, and thefastest iBook at 900 MHz. Each has AGP video with at least 16 MB ofvideo memory. The iBook G3/900 even has Radeon 7500 graphics on a2x AGP bus. Yes, it's not supported [emphasis added] by CoreImage, but it works nicely with Tiger, as thousands of users willattest.'
Core Image may be wonderful. I'll never know withthe Radeon 9000 in my dual 1 GHz Power Mac G4. Mac OS X 10.4runs just fine without Core Image support. For email, browsing theWeb, and writing - the three tasks I do most of the time - there'sno real benefit from Core Image.
Apple has nothing to gain by eliminating any andall G3 support in Leopard - and a lot of OS X 10.5 sales tolose if they do.
Dan
Core Image to Determine LeopardCompatibility
Eytan Bernet writes:
![Other mac stuffimac g4 specs Other mac stuffimac g4 specs](/uploads/1/2/6/6/126675848/108812267.jpg)
You wrote:
'You make a very important point about testing,but we can't ignore how sales of Leopard to existing Mac usersimpacts Apple. Piper Jaffray estimates that Apple will sell 2.6million copies of OS X 10.5 during its first quarter and 9million copies its first year. That points to about 3 million unitssold as upgrades and represents perhaps 20-25% of Mac users whohave compatible hardware.
'There are millions of G3 Macs out there runningTiger, and the people who upgraded to 10.4 two years ago are likelycandidates to upgrade to Leopard later this year. Apple has toweigh the income from 1 million more copies of OS X soldagainst the cost of testing. I somehow can't imagine them leavingthe bulk of those users behind.'
I disagree that the Tiger adoption has been that great for G3s.Lots of the apps that require Tiger require a G4 or better as well(the iLife 05 suite, other than iTunes, worked mostly with only G4s- iLife 06 does not support G3s, Toast 7, let alone 8, etc.)
Add to that, people who don't buy new hardware in that manyyears are not about to shell out money on an OS for their aginghardware. I am sure Apple did the math and realized that for thenumber of people who want the G3 support, it is just not worthit....
Eytan
You wrote:
'Apple would have to deliberately compile theLeopard installer to prevent it from running on a Mac without a G4or later CPU and would also have to deliberately compile Leoparditself to require the presence of a G4 or later to keep hacks likeXPostFacto from working. I can see them doing the first (and hopethey won't), but can't imagine them doing the latter.'
Other Mac Stuffimac G4 G5
I can. So many of Leopard's new features depend on havingvector units for operation. CoreAnimation is used throughout Leopard and is an integral part ofthe OS. It is nonfunctional without vector units.
Nuff said. I think the wish for Leopard to be supported on G3sneeds to be nixed. Instead of arguing why it should be kept, youneed to argue as to why it should not.
Eytan
Eytan,
We've used Macs productively since 1984 withoutcomputer animation built into the operating system, and as cool asCore Animation looks, a lot of G4 Macs don't have the processingpower to support it, so Apple would have to raise the bar waybeyond cutting off just G3 Macs.
The question isn't which 'whiz bang' technologieswon't run on older Macs, but which essential technologies will.Core Animation and Core Image are not essentials.
Dan
Etyan responds:
I disagree. Not when core features of the OS (like TimeMachine, for example) need to be rewritten to not use elementslike Core Animation. Core Animation requires a vector unit, OSfeatures require Core animation.
Etyan,
If you're correct, a lot of G4 owners are going tobe left out in the cold, as lots of older G4 Macs don't have thegraphics processors and video RAM to support Core Image (requiredby Core Animation). Here's a list of the oldest Macs that supportCoreImageout of the box:
- original Power Mac G5, 2003.06.23
- 17' iMac G4/1.25 GHz,2003.09.08
- 12' PowerBook G4/1 GHz, 15' PowerBook G4/1.0-1.25 GHz, 17' PowerBook G4/1.33 GHz, 2003.09.16
- 12' iBook G4/1.33 GHz,14' iBook G4/1.42 GHz,2005.07.26
This eliminates not only all G3 Macs, but all G4iBooks over two years old, all titanium PowerBooks, firstgeneration 12' and 17' PowerBooks, and all G4 iMacs except that 17'and 20' 1.25 GHz model. No G4 Power Macs are supported without avideo card upgrade.
While the rest of us are anticipating that Leopardmay support Macs introduced 4-6 years ago, making Core Image arequired feature would draw the line at 2-4 year old models.
As I've said before, I don't expect Apple to writeoff that many Mac users when Leopard ships in October.
Dan
Join us on Facebook, follow us on Twitter or Google+, or subscribe to our RSS news feed
Dan Knight has been publishing LowEnd Mac since April 1997. Mailbag columns come from email responses to his Mac Musings, Mac Daniel, Online Tech Journal, and other columns on the site.
Today's Links
- Mac of the Day: Macintosh 128K, (1984.01.24. 1984 wasn't going to be anything like 1984 thanks to the original Macintosh.)
Recent Content
- Go to our home page for a listing of recent content.
Low End Mac is an independent publication and has not been authorized,sponsored, or otherwise approved by Apple Inc. Opinions expressed arethose of their authors and may not reflect the opinion of CobwebPublishing. Advice is presented in good faith, but what works for onemay not work for all.
Entire Low End Mac website copyright ©1997-2016 by Cobweb Publishing, Inc. unless otherwise noted. Allrights reserved. Low End Mac, LowEndMac, and lowendmac.com aretrademarks of Cobweb Publishing Inc. Apple, the Apple logo, Macintosh,iPad, iPhone, iMac, iPod, MacBook, Mac Pro, and AirPort are registered trademarks of AppleInc. Additional company and product names may be trademarks orregistered trademarks and are hereby acknowledged.
Please report errors to .
LINKS: We allow and encourage links toany public page as long as the linked page does not appear within aframe that prevents bookmarking it.
Email may be published at our discretion unless marked 'not forpublication'; email addresses will not be published without permission,and we will encrypt them in hopes of avoiding spammers. Letters may beedited for length, context, and to match house style.
PRIVACY: We don't collect personalinformation unless you explicitly provide it, and we don't share theinformation we have with others. For more details, see our Terms of Use.
Entire Low End Mac website copyright ©1997-2016 by Cobweb Publishing, Inc. unless otherwise noted. Allrights reserved. Low End Mac, LowEndMac, and lowendmac.com aretrademarks of Cobweb Publishing Inc. Apple, the Apple logo, Macintosh,iPad, iPhone, iMac, iPod, MacBook, Mac Pro, and AirPort are registered trademarks of AppleInc. Additional company and product names may be trademarks orregistered trademarks and are hereby acknowledged.
Please report errors to .
LINKS: We allow and encourage links toany public page as long as the linked page does not appear within aframe that prevents bookmarking it.
Email may be published at our discretion unless marked 'not forpublication'; email addresses will not be published without permission,and we will encrypt them in hopes of avoiding spammers. Letters may beedited for length, context, and to match house style.
PRIVACY: We don't collect personalinformation unless you explicitly provide it, and we don't share theinformation we have with others. For more details, see our Terms of Use.
Other Mac Stuffimac G4 User
Follow Low End Mac on Twitter
Join Low End Mac on Facebook
Join Low End Mac on Facebook
Other Mac Stuffimac G4 Pro
Favorite Sites
MacSurfer
Cult of Mac
Shrine of Apple
MacInTouch
MyAppleMenu
InfoMac
The Mac Observer
Accelerate Your Mac
RetroMacCast
The Vintage Mac Museum
Deal Brothers
DealMac
Mac2Sell
Mac Driver Museum
JAG's House
System 6 Heaven
System 7 Today
the pickle's Low-End Mac FAQ
Cult of Mac
Shrine of Apple
MacInTouch
MyAppleMenu
InfoMac
The Mac Observer
Accelerate Your Mac
RetroMacCast
The Vintage Mac Museum
Deal Brothers
DealMac
Mac2Sell
Mac Driver Museum
JAG's House
System 6 Heaven
System 7 Today
the pickle's Low-End Mac FAQ
Other Mac Stuffimac G4 Specs
Affiliates
Amazon.com
The iTunes Store
PC Connection Express
Macgo Blu-ray Player
Parallels Desktop for Mac
eBay
The iTunes Store
PC Connection Express
Macgo Blu-ray Player
Parallels Desktop for Mac
eBay
Advertise
All of our advertising is handled by BackBeatMedia. For price quotes and advertising information,please contact at BackBeat Media(646-546-5194). This number is for advertising only.