Old, old iMac and OSX

N

Night Black

Gawd
Joined
Oct 23, 2006
Messages
699
So I received one of the first iMacs, a G3 CRT. It's the iMac DV Special edition or something, with the following specs:

500MHz Power PC G3
13 GB HD
512 MB RAM (Updated from 128)
ATi Rage 128 8 MB VRAM

So basically, I have two versions of OSX with me, 10.3 Panther and 10.4 Tiger. Which should I install? I'm thinking 10.3 because it's a bit older and less harsh on requirements, but my friend says that 10.4 is better optimized and much more stable.

Which should I install for best performance/stability?
 
10.4 should be just fine on it. I've got a iMac G3 350 with 10.3.9 on it and 256MB of RAM. I'd put 10.4 on it if I had a DVD drive in it. But, if you have both, why not try each of them out and see which one performs better.
 
I very much prefer 10.4 to 10.3. It'll be pretty slow though. Upgrading to a newer, larger, 7200RPM HD would help some.
 
Well, I'm running 10.3 right now, and it is lagging really badly. Youtube videos stutter, and if they do run they run out of sync with the audio.
 
Every single version of Mac OS X is faster than the version that preseded it, even on older hardware. As long as 10.4 installs at all (I believe it requires built-in Firewire, or something such), you'll be fine and dandy.
 
I am in a position to purchase an older G3 mac, potentially even a G4 at a reasonable cost. How usable would this be?
 
drjaymez said:
I am in a position to purchase an older G3 mac, potentially even a G4 at a reasonable cost. How usable would this be?
Click to expand...

What's "reasonable?" I got a Sawtooth G4 for about $50 a couple years ago and that was about "reasonable" after I paid another $50 for more RAM and a video card. Now days I wouldn't pay any more than $100 for an MDD (Mirrored Drive Doors) model, and it would have to be fully loaded. Unless you get it for free, like the OP, I wouldn't bother with a G3 anymore.
 
As Black Morty said, most of them time Mac OS X releases get faster every time (though Leopard was an exception). The old iMac should be able to run it alright.
 
CEpeep said:
What's "reasonable?" I got a Sawtooth G4 for about $50 a couple years ago and that was about "reasonable" after I paid another $50 for more RAM and a video card. Now days I wouldn't pay any more than $100 for an MDD (Mirrored Drive Doors) model, and it would have to be fully loaded. Unless you get it for free, like the OP, I wouldn't bother with a G3 anymore.
Click to expand...

Where are you finding fully loaded MDDs for $100?
 
CEpeep said:
I'm not. I'm just saying that I wouldn't pay any more than that for one.
Click to expand...

Uh... Then you're out of your mind.

They still go for several hundred for a reason. They're very capable, expandable, and still fully supported.

You couldn't get a similarly equipped PC for that kind of price.

Don't be a wet towel.
 
Centauri said:
Uh... Then you're out of your mind.

They still go for several hundred for a reason. They're very capable, expandable, and still fully supported.

You couldn't get a similarly equipped PC for that kind of price.

Don't be a wet towel.
Click to expand...

I'm not, I'm just saying that I personally wouldn't pay more than $100 for said machine. But I'm not really in the market for a PPC machine anyway. I'd much rather stick with an x86 Mac.
 
Don't mean to thread hijack. Picked up a G4 AGP 400 Mhz with 256 MB, 40 GB HD, and Tiger for $90. Seems adequate. Honestly, I just want to play with Garageband. :)
 
Black Morty Rackham said:
Every single version of Mac OS X is faster than the version that preseded it, even on older hardware. As long as 10.4 installs at all (I believe it requires built-in Firewire, or something such), you'll be fine and dandy.
Click to expand...

Sort of/kind of true. Tiger's gonna be faster than Leopard on a 1GHz G4 with 768MB RAM for example, and I know this from experience. Furthermore, Leopard no longer supports processors lower/slower than the G4-867MHz, and all-told has notably higher recommended hardware requirements than Tiger. Snow Leopard will not even support G4/G5 processors, and that is supposed to be released in less than two years.

The belief that newer Apple OS releases will be faster than older releases on older hardware is truer than it would be for Windows, but still isn't very true.
 
Centauri said:
Uh... Then you're out of your mind.

They still go for several hundred for a reason. They're very capable, expandable, and still fully supported.

You couldn't get a similarly equipped PC for that kind of price.

Don't be a wet towel.
Click to expand...

To be fair, PCs are dirt cheap and better supported than G3 Macs. For three hundred, one can pick up a dual core Dell with 80GB hdd and a gig of ram. I don't see how you can argue your statement.
 
Mad_Pyro said:
Sort of/kind of true. Tiger's gonna be faster than Leopard on a 1GHz G4 with 768MB RAM for example, and I know this from experience.
Click to expand...
That may very well be the case -- I've never run Leopard on anything non-Intel, to be honest. Tiger was a lot faster on my old PMG3 than Panther was, though.
 
Mad_Pyro said:
To be fair, PCs are dirt cheap and better supported than G3 Macs. For three hundred, one can pick up a dual core Dell with 80GB hdd and a gig of ram. I don't see how you can argue your statement.
Click to expand...

What are you talking about? I wasn't talking about the G3 iMac. Do you have any idea what an MDD is?
 
Centauri said:
What are you talking about? I wasn't talking about the G3 iMac. Do you have any idea what an MDD is?
Click to expand...

I didn't realize you were referring to the mirrored-drive door ones, as opposed to the initial post. However, even that change doesn't skew the data in your favor. It's still cheaper to buy a Dell/Compaq whathaveyou that will have superior specs and better support for "several hundred". Maybe you haven't looked at anything other than a Mac? I'll be the first to say that OSX rocks - I am typing this on a Macbook. However, it's inarguable that PC hardware is both cheaper AND better supported.

http://www.circuitcity.com/ssm/Comp...13652/catOid/-12962/rpem/ccd/productDetail.do

http://www.circuitcity.com/ssm/Acer...14483/catOid/-12962/rpem/ccd/productDetail.do

The first is a link to a computer for $330 with a dual-core 64 bit processor, a gig of ram, dvd burner, and 160GB harddrive. The second is $450 with 4GB of ram, 8200 series video card, 320GB harddrive, and so on. As much as I love OSX, I would love to see any Mac, new or used, offer that kind of bang for the buck. Your statement on the MDDs - still wrong.
 
You seem to be having trouble comprehending everything I'm saying. I'll help;

CEpeep said he wouldn't pay $100 for an MDD (and a fully loaded one at that) > I said you can't get a comparably spec'd PC for that price; You can't.

As for whether or not I lack knowledge of PC hardware and pricing, I'll skip the diatribe and simply say that I'd bet the bank on my PC knowledge being above yours. It's generally best to give benefit of the doubt to anybody with a 5+ year membership on a computer hardware message board; I do the same.

I'd also take a loaded MDD over either of those pieces of garbage you linked to. But hey, to each their own.
 
Centauri said:
You seem to be having trouble comprehending everything I'm saying. I'll help;

CEpeep said he wouldn't pay $100 for an MDD (and a fully loaded one at that) > I said you can't get a comparably spec'd PC for that price; You can't.

As for whether or not I lack knowledge of PC hardware and pricing, I'll skip the diatribe and simply say that I'd bet the bank on my PC knowledge being above yours. It's generally best to give benefit of the doubt to anybody with a 5+ year membership on a computer hardware message board; I do the same.

I'd also take a loaded MDD over either of those pieces of garbage you linked to. But hey, to each their own.
Click to expand...

Explain how those systesm are "garbage"? compared to a several year old nearly unsupported system.

On another note, the number of years here means jack shit and you know it. I've seen several member here for only 1 or 2 years say thing far more knowledgable and insightful than some with even 7 or 8 years experience. Even so, the person you belched that mess to have been here slightly longer than you. So whose word is more reliable?
 
Centauri said:
You seem to be having trouble comprehending everything I'm saying. I'll help;

CEpeep said he wouldn't pay $100 for an MDD (and a fully loaded one at that) > I said you can't get a comparably spec'd PC for that price; You can't.

As for whether or not I lack knowledge of PC hardware and pricing, I'll skip the diatribe and simply say that I'd bet the bank on my PC knowledge being above yours. It's generally best to give benefit of the doubt to anybody with a 5+ year membership on a computer hardware message board; I do the same.

I'd also take a loaded MDD over either of those pieces of garbage you linked to. But hey, to each their own.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry; you're right. Your message did seem a bit muddled though, since you were at some point saying that you could get "several hundred" for an MDD and then saying you would not be able to get equivalent PC hardware for the same - I think getting either for a hundred American flat would be more than worth it, but the 30 seconds I took to find those computers that would be faster than any MDD ever made show that the MDDs at several hundred are not necessarily a very good value. Those "pieces of garbage" I linked to are going to be significantly faster than any MDD ever made. I believe those topped out at, what, dual 1.42GHz G4 processors? Any Athlon64 x2, let alone that second box with the 4850 and 4GB of ram is going to be faster than *any* MDD.

Regarding the personal attacks, I think it's unfortunate that you are turning this into an attack on my character instead of a debate of numbers, in which case I misunderstood, but am still right if we are looking at MDD street value vs performance to new "pieces of garbage" in big box stores. That said, I would be more than comfortable stating first that I know at least as much as you about computers, though I will not make the claim that I know *more* than you. Also, I just want to point you to the little fact that I have been a member of this here "computer hardware message board" for half a year longer than you have, thereby obliterating your other argument.

Thank you for playing. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top