Powermac G4 Questions

[Then there were none.]

Well, im considering trying to find a cheap G4, preferably 1ghz or more to use for internet browsing, downloading and the like, and was just wondering, how well do these old macs run Tiger, or even Leopard and could i use a KVM switch to have my windows PC & G4 hooked up to the same monitor, and is there any place in the UK that i could find a good deal on one?

[Synaesthesia]

They run Mac OS X well, even Leopard. However any intel chip would be faster (even Pentium 4), but for web surfing/light use they are fine. Yes you can use a KVM switch with them no problem.

 

Search for G4 Mac mini's in ebay, or for G4 Powermacs.

[Then there were none.]

Thanks for your reply, your right, buying an intel machine and then using that is faster and cheaper, thanks for your help.

[(MoC)]

I wouldn't do that if I were you. OSX86 is fun but can be bitchy to manage. Buy and OEM machine, and save yourself the headache. My iBook G4 has boot times faster than some macbooks. And that ATI chipset beats the intel integrated {censored} hands down. IDK, just my opinion on the matter at hand!

[Then there were none.]

Masteroftech, i agree with you completely, I would prefer to go OEM simply for less headaches, but i would like to know the cheapest way to buy one, but does the 850mhz - 1ghz+ speed difference count when i have 1gb ram, and do they have USB 2.0, this machine would really only be used for schoolwork and browsing.

[Synaesthesia]

I don't agree with MasterofTech, if you have some hardware knowledge you can build a 100% working hackintosh, yes it can give issues and is more annoying than a mac, but once it's working, it's fine. I haven't touched my P4 since I put uphuck on it and it's still running super stable.

does the 850mhz - 1ghz+ speed difference count when i have 1gb ram, and do they have USB 2.0, this machine would really only be used for schoolwork and browsing.

No, not really. A major problem I have with the G4's is that they really slow down and heat up when they have to play a flash animation. My mom's Powerbook overheats when I'm just surfing the web! Ok this won't happen on a desktop, but still...

 

Another question, doesn't your AMD rig work well on OS X? Why do you want a mac? To run Leopard? (just asking here) You can just continue dual-booting your current hackintosh.

 

Anyway, make up your own mind...my suggestion? Build your own rig with a Celeron 420...

[Kane Adams]

I just got one of these from ebay and it runs Leopard fine.

Mine has a 1.25 gigs of ram so would want to have that much.

 

[~pcwiz]

G4 Mac Minis and PowerMac G4s both run Mac OS X Tiger and Leopard pretty good as far as I know. And yes you could use a KVM switch and use your existing monitor, keyboard, and mouse. I'd recommend a PowerMac G4. They're good for lots of things and you could find one for pretty cheap on eBay. G4 Mac Mini's are good though for just what you say, internet browsing, downloading etc.

 

Your decision.

[A Nonny Moose]

I'd personally go to Powermax.com and see if you can find a good used one. At least you're dealing directly with them rather than possibly getting scammed from eBay.

[consolation]

The only problem with G4's from the quicksilver /mirror door era, is that they come with rather terrible graphics cards. Luckily you can easily flash a PC 9800/6800/7800 to PPC mac. Making them a very usable machine indeed.

 

http://www.themacelite.com/

[GTR-33]

A G4 such as a Quicksilver or a Mirror Drive Door will run either quite well. I have a 400MHz G4 running 10.4.11 just fine. What you have to keep in mind is that while PPC chips are rated quite less than most Pentium chips, they aren't slow due to having quite a bit more on chip cache memory, which is quite important in terms of realistic speed. For some reason people are acting like the PPC systems are impossibly slow or something.

However any intel chip would be faster (even Pentium 4), but for web surfing/light use they are fine.

There is no P4 on earth that is as fast as a late G4 machine. Post up some xBench scores to back up a claim like that. You would have to build a C2D hack to outperform even some of the slow G4s let alone a G5. I built a hack with a Celeron 420 and while it's bottom of the barrel of Conroe chips, it's no faster than my 1GHz MDD despite having 600MHz faster clock and almost 700Mhz faster bus speed. To say any Intel will be faster is just ignorant. A bloated clock speed doesn't make a faster system.

 

The thing with a hack is, if you are willing to pay about 400 you can have a system that is as fast as a G5 but costs half as much as a used G5. You have to spend at least 800 to hit current MacPro numbers. What you sacrifice is general usability compared to a real mac.

[vbetts]

I don't know about that...I would believe that an lga775 or even the 3ghz+ 478 P4s are faster than a late G4 machine. You are right, clock speeds don't make a system faster. It's about the fsb, the cache, and general stability of the core. As well as if the system is designed for it, where G4 cpus are designed to run Mac, where as P4s are designed to run PC OS. But depending on what cpu, the clock speed will also help. Like a Q6600. You can't tell me now that a dual core 2.4 ghz core 2 duo will match the q6600 stock speeds.(2.4 ghz) Maybe if it was 1.5 ghz per core it could, or hell probably even 2 ghz per core.

[(MoC)]

I understand all the other opinions. But rather than a non OEM machine that has some age; I can restate what GTR said about the faster G4 speeds. I really don't know what people are saying about slow speeds either. My G4 iBook doesn't overheat, or eat {censored} with Intel Graphics, or no Classic Support, or {censored} graphics, or browsing only capabilites etc. G4 is not a dead CPU, they are very good macs!!

[GTR-33]

I don't know about that...I would believe that an lga775 or even the 3ghz+ 478 P4s are faster than a late G4 machine. You are right, clock speeds don't make a system faster. It's about the fsb, the cache, and general stability of the core. As well as if the system is designed for it, where G4 cpus are designed to run Mac, where as P4s are designed to run PC OS. But depending on what cpu, the clock speed will also help. Like a Q6600. You can't tell me now that a dual core 2.4 ghz core 2 duo will match the q6600 stock speeds.(2.4 ghz) Maybe if it was 1.5 ghz per core it could, or hell probably even 2 ghz per core.

They aren't faster. The fastest official G4 was 1.25 but you can get up to 2.0GHz in the after market and they will walk circles around P4s. While the the clock of a P4 is higher the cache is a joke compared to any G4 and that is where the G4 has always shined. In bandwidth. It has nothing to do with "designed"

to run Mac OS. The P4 is a joke. The only reason the PPC got dropped was because of lack of advancement and price. Jobs promised a 3GHz G5 in 2003 and IBM never delivered. Fastest G5 in a Mac was the 2.7GHz and that wasn't until 2005. Jobs also wanted a G5 in a portable but the G5 was nearly too hot for the Power Mac tower. Not because they weren't superior in every way to Intel chips. It was a case competition from other manufacturers interested in using PPC chips in their products that would ultimately make more money for IBM than making chips for Apple. So all the R&D went into other chips besides a faster and cooler G5. Those would be the chips in the Xbox 360 and the PS3. Would Apple have continued with IBM they would be unveiling the G6 and it would undoubtedly be much faster than most if not all of the Intel lot.

 

As for the E6600 vs the Q6600 the E will be just as fast as the Q in any single application unless that application is written for multiple processors. To understand the benefit of multiple processors or cores you have to understand how they work. Unless the program is written for the multiple cores it can only address one core at a time. So to that program all it "sees" is a single 2.4GHz processor be it the E or the Q. They will be equally fast in that given program. Where the Q shines over the E is doing more at once. For an overall computing experience, the Q will seem "faster" with more programs open at once.

[chutsu]

yea I would agree with GTR-33...I even remember that there was an apple keynote explaining the "Mhz myth" where an apple engineer explained why the powerpc chip was more advance than a pentium chip at that time!

Here's a youtube link, refering to what I and GTR-33 are talking about.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=r5XJFjPYPVw

HOWEVER THAT SAID...I don't really know whats the current situation with the comparison of the G4 and Due Core.......

 

To behonest I was thinking of buying like a Bad Axe 2 and all other bits and bobs to build myself a Hackintosh, its a fun project, but being a student and with not a hell alot of cash to play around with I think purchasing an old mac would probably be the best option in my opinion. Cause think about this, EVERY TIME when Apple releases an OSX update you would have to get a new motherboard and Cross your fingers and hope it works and then you would have to play around to see whats not working, and then go out spend more money on parts to make it work. Like for example alot of the boards don't have the ethernet working and to make it work 1.) Either Patch it OR 2.) Buy a PCI Ehternet card that does work!.....Which you would probably end up spending Same amount if not more than fixing a good old mac!

 

Now G4 are very very cheap considering they were $1000+ you can probably grab a "Sawtooth" bargin for $80-150 on ebay...and then upgrade the damn thing with a PowerLogix or NewerTechnogy Dual 1.8Ghz ($629 from OWC) plus a Nvidia 7800 AGP Graphics card ($50-70 on ebay)...it would probably last another 2-3 years. WITHOUT THE HASSLE of a HACKINTOSH not working or some flaws of sound, ethernet, switch off not working....you NAME IT. You get a MAC that does work...

 

You could argue saying well with that much money you could have spent it on a mac mini.. AND YES YOU COULD but again the graphics on the mini has been critisied for being rather poor for video editing and gaming...soo....its really up to you.

 

Oh and just to let you have a look at what the G4 is still capable of go on the link below!

 

In the end why the hell would you guys need a Quad Core anyways...come on its a waste of money if you don't do SUPER GRAPHICAL RENDERING like the people in PIXAR ALWAYS DO...and in the Current Standards the G4 is plentiful for say Leopard and one or two releases to come! And when they do come out ...just upgrade your CPU again!.

[(MoC)]

Umm, compare the quad g4 to a quad intel. They'd [intel] cry like no tommorow even though XBench results show otherwise. Apple did a bad mistake with the Intel Switch. They probably couldn't make the G5 portable....

[chutsu]

You gotta think of the intel switch as a REVENGE with windows for STEALING the GUI of mac ages ago.. reason why mac did not dominate after windows stole the GUI, was because the PC (IBM Clones) had a lot more software than the mac did... and macs were $1000 more than PC at that time! Mac sales went down nearly bankrupt

 

So NOW that apple has switched over to the same platform as Windows, hopefully people would realise that the mac is a better platform and all and start writing and use mac more! plus you can run windows on mac....(obviously!)

 

Its a very long term scheme I say..Just you wait and see!!