G4 and G3 400mhz

[nicknowsky]

I noticed someones specs that they were using 10.4.9 on a 400mhz G3 Now how do those run in comparison to some of our hackinstioshs??? I mean can they really run 10.4.9 at decent speeds and all apps included?? I have been thinking of buying one on CRAIGLIST I just wasnt sure if they till perform well ion todays standards. Hell back in '99 they were fastest damn machines on the planet. I am just hesitant cause most of today machines dont dip below 2GHZ sooooo can I expect decent performance?? or NO????????

 

I have been looking at 400mhz G4 I think 384mb RAM 40GB HD

[Colonel]

The G4's have Altivec processor instructions, unlike the G3's. Most apps on PPC Macs check for Altivec and will quite oftenly crash if it's not there. You'd be better trying to hunt down a G4.

[four!]

Agreed

[Mebster]

I've got a G3 iMac. Had 350,400,450,500mhz and they all run 10.4.9. I don't really use it for much more then word, internet, music. Watching movies is a major no no (unless you play a DVD) I discovered but for me for my families needs it's been a nice addition. And I only for it for £30 to get used to OS X so that I could decide if I really wanted to get a MacBook.

[A Nonny Moose]

CURRENTLY, the G3 processor is still viable for running OS X and many of its applications (except for things that are specifically done up for the G4's Altivec unit). And Ace, my trusty ole 900 MHz G3 can play most movie files.

 

Also, MHz (or GHz) alone ISN'T the best way to check for good performance. Apple showed this time and again with Photoshop tests where a G4 processor (at a lower clock speed) just mauled an Intel one. The reason why? Adobe actually took the time to understand the G4 processor and optimized many of their applications for the G4 processor. The Intel zombies never understood why their chips were inferior even at faster clock speeds, and no amount of telling them about how this worked would make a difference.

 

Unless it's something that can test nearly everything on the system (like Macworld's Speedmark test), then don't trust just one item to tell you everything about the system.

[Lactobacillus P]

My 1.2Ghz PPC G4 machine boasts a pretty good performance! Especially with the 8600 Pro Ati Graphics card that sits in it. Comparing with my Hackintosh and intel Macs it does run slower (especially when encoding multimedia files, or compressing files) but for most stuff the G4 is just as good as the intel Macs or the Hacktinosh.

I've made some comparisons with Xbench

[Mebster]

CURRENTLY, the G3 processor is still viable for running OS X and many of its applications (except for things that are specifically done up for the G4's Altivec unit).

The G3's I've got don't have QE/CI, which may be why the suck big time at playing any video. That includes playing the "I'm a Mac & I'm a PC" Apple Quick Time videos on the apple site or even if they are saved on the HDD. And don't ask about divx files.

 

And Ace, my trusty ole....

For a moment there I thought I was your trusty ole...

[Colonel]

Also, MHz (or GHz) alone ISN'T the best way to check for good performance. Apple showed this time and again with Photoshop tests where a G4 processor (at a lower clock speed) just mauled an Intel one. The reason why? Adobe actually took the time to understand the G4 processor and optimized many of their applications for the G4 processor. The Intel zombies never understood why their chips were inferior even at faster clock speeds, and no amount of telling them about how this worked would make a difference.

The

.

[nicknowsky]

well to start me off and it doent mean I'm not gonna buy a nice G4, but I did buy an IMAC 600mhz? 192RAM 13GB HD with 10.3 installed and I have to say it seems Okay so far I wanna upgrade to 10.4.- soon Can I use my JAS 10.4.8 on the IMAC or what

 

I really want a macmini but I HAVE TO WORK UPTO THAT 1ST

[Mebster]

Can I use my JAS 10.4.8 on the IMAC or what

No you can't. Because:

1) you will need a PPC installation version of 10.4,

2) the Jas DVD is a hacked Intel/AMD version and from what I've read although they are hacked to work on Intel machines, they still wouldn't work on an Intel mac. Correct?

[nicknowsky]

i thought so Im downloafing a regular 10.4 as we speak, how bout hardware 13gb is TOO small and the video ATI RAGE 128 VR is either 8mb or 16mb which i have a 128mb nvidia agp card laying round Id like to hook up

[Mebster]

i thought so Im downloafing a regular 10.4 as we speak, how bout hardware 13gb is TOO small and the video ATI RAGE 128 VR is either 8mb or 16mb which i have a 128mb nvidia agp card laying round Id like to hook up

13GB is more than enough to install OS X. Need a minimum of 2GB if you deselect all the other extras (translations, printer drivers...) but obviously you will need room to grow other applications and your own data on and 13Gb may or may not be enough for that. If it's like me and all you really need on it is word, excel and a few extras then it will be fine.

 

I don't know about updating the graphics card, sorry.

[nicknowsky]

thank you , 1 more ?? I downloaded 10.4 and went to burn it in windows with UltrIso it took 3 seconds thats it, what if any is the proper way to create a osx DVD in windows

[Mebster]

thank you , 1 more ?? I downloaded 10.4 and went to burn it in windows with UltrIso it took 3 seconds thats it, what if any is the proper way to create a osx DVD in windows

From what I remember I had major issues burning the DVD version of OS X on my Dell pc. Tried several methods with sever DVD-R being wasted. I think the best method is using your Disk Utilities in your hackingtosh... or do what I did. Use Disk Utilities on a Real Mac. That worked.