Upgrading Sawtooth and Leopard on a Cube
From Chris Kilner
Dan:
Please let Steve Gier [see Upgrading a G4/500 Sawtooth] know that
the Sawtooth can
really only accept processors from other 100 MHz bus G4s (another AGP
or Gigabit Ethernet) or from third party upgrades. The 133 MHz bus
processors from Digital Audio and Quicksilver Macs will run slower (on
the 100 MHz bus), will need their original heatsink and block the
motherboard IDE connector due to the different footprint, will not have
access to the processor cache, and require a 12V lead to one of the
mounting posts in order to use them in a Sawtooth in other words - it
requires quite a bit of hacking!
As for Melany putting Leopard on a Cube [see Leopard on a G4 Cube?], it should
install fine without any hacks as long as the processor speed is
recognized by the Leopard installer disk (make sure all firmware
upgrades are done first), and your advice on the video card was pretty
much spot on &endash; I really like my fanned 6200 (and put up with the long
startup delay in order to use the GPU temperature sensor). While
Leopard ran okay with a 32 MB Nvidia GeForce 2 MX, the increased strain
on the GPU from Leopard's graphics seemed to heat the GPU up too much
for its passive heatsink. If she elects to go with a Radeon 7500 or
GeForce 2 MX, she should probably look into adding a fanned heatsink to
the card (which narrows the price difference to more powerful cards).
Radeon 9200s (a few of which will fit in Cubes) are supposed to run
cool enough with a passive heat sink, but for a few more dollars, the
6200's are much better deals, and many Cube owners report running
passively-cooled 6200s just fine (tell Melany about www.cubeowner.com).
Chris Kilner
Chris,
Thanks for the info. I've forwarded it to Steve and
Melany.
Dan
Restrictions in Swapping Power Mac G4 CPUs
From Tom Tubman :
Hi Dan,
Just a comment about replacing processors in G4 AGP Macs. There are
significant limitations to installing Apple processors from different
generation AGP G4s, especially if they have different bus speeds. The
processor interoperability falls into 4 (usually) non-overlapping
groups: - Tip Jar
I may be wrong about the dual 867 processor not being interoperable
with the rest of the MDD motherboards, but I haven't tested that one
yet. I've switched processors from all the other G4 categories around
(paying attention to the Uni-7 limitation of the early Sawtooths, which
you mentioned) with no problems, and things work fine.
You can electrically modify G4 DA and G4 QS processor daughtercards
to run in the 100 MHz bus Sawtooths, but I've never done this as it
hasn't been worth the trouble yet. Yet...
The 3rd party processor companies have circuitry in them to adapt to
the differences in Mboards between the (non-MDD) AGP G4s so these don't
have the above installation restrictions, but the Apple processors have
these limitations.
- Tom
Tom,
Thanks for writing. I've only had two G4 Power Macs (a
dual 450 MHz Mystic and my workhorse, a dual 1 GHz MDD). I know that most
third-party CPUs are designed to work on both 100 MHz and 133 MHz bus
systems, and only a couple (both from Sonnet) work with the 167 MHz bus
Mirror Drive Door Power Macs (all 1.25 GHz and 1.42 GHz models and the
non-FireWire 800 dual 1 GHz).
We'll be sure to note these issues in our G4 profiles.
Thanks again for the info!
Dan
Expansion Slots and Low Cost Macs
From Robert Blanton in response to Expansion Slots and Low End Macs:
Well you are right about one thing, Apple has been on an upward
trend since 2001. In sales.
I don't see how you can say that you "made no claim that the
IIci was a low-end computer".
It is true that you did not use those exact words, but the gist of
your response to Trevor Howard was that Apple doesn't sell low-end Macs
with expansion slots anymore. The gist of my letter was "So what? You
never liked their low-end computers anyway, so why should Apple try to
sell them now?"
Yes, Apple used to sell cheaper Macs with expandability, but you
didn't wax poetic about those low-end computers, only the top-end
computers rated a mention. You didn't talk about the fun you used to
have trying to get you new video card to work in your old LC (a Low End
Mac Road Apple), but you did sing the praises of the IIci, a very
definite Top End Mac, the Mac Pro of its day. If Apple tried to sell
the computer you have been asking for, they would get whacked with the
same whiny stick people have hit them with over the MacBook Air. " Only
two expansion slots??? What are they thinking???" "How do they
expect me to survive with only two hard drives?!?!?!" "It's not
fast enough, it only has room for one optical drive?? Oh the
humanity!" "Crippled, Crippled Crippled!!!" Maybe Apple is right to
stay away from that market after all.
One more thing . . . you mention at the end of your reply
to Mr. Howard that you almost always buy used or refurbished Macs.
Might I suggest a used or refurbished Mac Pro? I know it's not the
computer of your dreams, but that's because you don't own one. Yet.
Thanks again, Robert
Robert,
Send me $2,000, and I'll buy a used or refurbished Mac
Pro. I don't have that kind of money, and it's not the computer of my
dreams for one simple reason: It doesn't have Classic Mode (and none of
the Mac emulators work like Classic Mode).
Apple has had expansion slots in low-end Mac since
1987, when the SE was introduced alongside the Mac II. The entire LC
series had expansion slots. Definitely low-end, even if Apple did
cripple their design in some ways. The consumer Power Mac 5500 and 6500
had PCI expansion slots, and they were the low-end models of their day
(1997/98).
Steve Jobs has been on the warpath in his belief that
only "pro" users need expansion, whether that's the expansion slot in
PowerBook and MacBook Pro notebooks or the PCI and PCI Express slots
found in Power Mac and Mac Pro models. All of the new consumer models
designed after the Second Coming of Steve Jobs have no expansion slots
- not the iMacs, not the iBooks, not the eMacs, not the Mac minis, not
the MacBooks. (For the record, no Mac released during Jobs' first era
at Apple had expansion slots either.)
Funny thing is, expansion slots were the key to the
Apple II's success way back in the 1970s. Need a serial port? A
parallel port? A Z-80 card? A floppy controller? Plug one into one of
the Apple's slots. It's something IBM made sure it copied with the
original PC, and expansion slots have been standard on DOS/Windows PCs
ever since.
You can buy a $200 Linux-based PC with expansion
slots, but it costs over 10x as much to buy the cheapest current
configuration of the Mac Pro, Apple's only desktop model with expansion
slots. Apple is forcing Jobs' view that only those with $2,000 or more
to spend on a computer want or need expansion slots. The company
refuses to give the market the opportunity to decide whether it wants a
sub-$2,000 Mac with expansion slots.
Apple has the opportunity to grow even faster and make
more money by offering an affordable desktop Mac with expansion slots
and drive bays, but the company is wed to one man's vision of the
market. It's made Apple very profitable, but it has neglected a huge
segment of the market: those who need or believe they need expansion
slots and can't justify spending over $2,000 on a computer.
Give the market a midrange Mac with integrated video
(to keep the price low), three drive bays (optical, 3.5" hard drive,
and one for either), two expansion slots (for a better video card and
who knows what - exactly the reason the Apple II had slots), and a
realistic price tag and watch Apple steal even
more market share from Dell and HP.
With $15 billion in the bank, Apple has little to lose
and much to gain by pursuing the mass market.
Dan
Power Mac G5 a Good Choice?
From Ben Szymanski:
Dan:
I'm in need of an opinion from a much more experienced Mac
enthusiast. Since I visit LEM a few times a week, I figured this would
be the place to go to get an outside opinion. So here it goes:
I'm a high-school student who has a 12" iBook G4 [running at 1.07
GHz]. I'm pretty into using most of the iApps, Photoshop Elements,
Corel Painter, and various other graphics applications. I've pretty
much upgraded this iBook as much as I can: maxed on RAM, upgraded the
HD, added AirPort Ex. Card, got a cheap external display, and used
Screen-Spanning
Doctor to enable clamshell mode. This thing is as loaded as I think
I can possibly make it, and it's still way too slow to the point that
it can be extremely frustrating to do the simplest thing. Even just
highlighting text on a webpage can lag.
I'm compelled to write because I had just read your response to
another person who was in a similar situation with their 1.5 GHz
PowerBook G4 in the most recent LEM Mailbag. You suggested that they
should look to a Mac mini, and later changed that recommendation to an
Intel Core 2 Duo iMac. I should point out that I can work with the
system, but it takes way more patience than I think should be normal.
And don't even get me started about my HandBrake experiences... : )
Now, I should note that I only have two Dashboard widgets open at
any one time [if I've actually launched Dashboard], my desktop is as
tidy as can be [with nothing other than the HD icon], I usually only
have iTunes and Safari running on top of whatever application I'm
using, and I restart daily. I don't even use a photo as my desktop
picture: I use one of the aqua blue desktops because I feel it might
make my system that .001% faster. And I just did a clean install of
Leopard within the last few months. I also run OnyX
scripts biweekly; have removed language localizations and other excess
files. I don't know what else I can really do.
But here's the main scoop: I want to get something faster [and for
cheap] that can hold me over so that I can keep my sanity while waiting
to buy a new Mac when I leave for college. I was thinking low-end,
cheap Power Mac G5 [via the Swap List, maybe?]. But then I look at
Apple's current lineup and realize that the only system that would
probably be best for me [in the future] would be a Mac Pro. Now I know
a lot can change in just 1.5 years, but even the most modest Mac Pro
configuration has not so modest price tag, so I don't want to spend a
lot now. And I'm anything but thrilled with the rest of Apple's lineup:
glossy screens, integrated graphics chips, and lack of future
expandability have infected all of their systems but the Mac Pro.
So, to sort of tie all of this information into something relevant
and more importantly, a question: Would it actually be worth my time to
try and find a cheap and slower 'interim' PowerMac G5, or should I just
stick with my iBook and wait until I go to college to get a new Mac
[Pro]? Being a high-school student, I'm sure you realize that funds are
tight and what I do have money-wise I'd like to keep as opposed to go
and spend like crazy on a Mac[s]. Even if my dream-budget G5 is missing
some components, like RAM, or a hard drive, or a optical drive, that
would be fine with me because I love fixing up Macs like that, and it
wouldn't be too expensive to do [although I'm not up for a dead
logic-board/PSU system]. This last spring I completely restored a
broken and spray-painted B&W Power Mac G3 for cheap
that had a flaky ATA controller - without the use of a PCI card - and
it works perfectly. I'm already considering trying to sell that to get
funds for a G5.
I know the PPC G5 platform probably feels more and more defunct to
it's remaining users every day, as does my G4 to me, but moving up to a
older Power Mac G5 would probably still feel as astounding as it did
for people who moved up from a G4 to a G5 in 2003 or whenever. I've
been extremely indecisive about this issue for a while, and any
insights might have may help me figure out the best way to go about
this matter.
Well, I think I've written enough - anymore and I wouldn't be
surprised if you stopped reading this e-mail!
Thanks,
-Ben
Ben,
You're precisely the kind of user Apple is ignoring
with its product line: someone who needs some expandability but can't
justify $2,000+ for a Mac Pro. It's why we keep hoping that someday
Apple will decide it wants to be a big player in the personal computer
market and make a somewhat expandable model that fits between the Mac
Pro and the Mac mini.
If you're looking for the most bang for the buck and
the most expansion options, you're looking in the right place with the
Power Mac G5. Used
dual-processor 2.0 GHz G5s start at a bit over $1,000 right now,
and it will give you plenty of room for PCI cards and hard drives. That
will give you roughly 4x the processing power of your G4 iBook, room
for several hard drives, support for up to 4 GB of RAM, and the
possibility of going to a better graphics card. And expansion
slots.
Best of all, the typical configuration (1 GB of RAM,
160 GB hard drive) is going to make you happy, so you won't need to
upgrade until you feel the need.
Still, it's a shame Apple doesn't have a new computer
to sell you in the same price range.
Dan
Looking for a Scanner that Works with Panther
From Patrick O'Reilly:
Greetings, I'm sorry to be a bother but I had a question that I
thought you might be uniquely qualified to answer. If I recall
correctly besides being knowing a fair share about Macs, you also know
a fair amount about photography.
Well my problem is this. I have rare use for a scanner, and when I
do I simply borrow my father's. His current setup is an old G4 450
(Sawtooth) running Panther, and I think he got his scanner around the
same time he got the machine. So it's a little long in the tooth. I've
been meaning to try and scan a bunch of old photos, but I have gone
through this process before for the odd photo with his scanner, and
it's not difficult, but it tends to be rather time consuming.
I don't really follow the world of scanner based technology news,
and I wasn't sure if my dad's scanner not only had some possible
connivence problems for me, but also if the resolution of today's
scanners is appreciably better now too. I wasn't sure if they made a
scanner that had something to help automize the process of photo
scanning (in addition to a flatbed). I know there are scanner/printer
combos, but that is not really a big deal for my dad. I guess a color
printer would be nice, but he has a B&W laser printer, which is
fine for him.
And lastly, if you do know of such a product, would it work in
Panther? It's not a huge issue, as perhaps if I got him a scanner he
would finally get around to getting a Mac that is a little more
modern.
Thanks for your time, and keep up the good work. I first started
reading Low End Mac in 1997 or 98 on my 6100 (with a G3 upgrade), and
after a few years away from the Mac (it was 2001, I desperately needed
a new machine, didn't really have the money for a new Mac, OS X seemed
not ready yet, and I was intrigued by BeOS), I got 1.66 GHz Core Due mini as soon as
they were announced. I love my mini, but the lack of a video card and
the 2.5" drive are a bit annoying. But what are you going to do?
Patrick
Patrick,
Yes, I know quite a bit about Macs, and long before
that, I got into photography. I think it was about 8th grade when my
Dad took me to a photo show downtown sponsored by a local camera store.
I was intrigued, grabbed every brochure I could lay my hands on, and
learned all I could so I would make the right decision when I had the
chance to get my own camera.
That was over 35 years ago, and I've been a Mac user
for over 20 years now. In all that time, I've only owned one flatbed
scanner, and then only because it was being sold at a close-out price
of $149 including a full copy of Photoshop 4.0, if I recall correctly.
I've never really used that SCSI scanner, although one of my sons did,
and I'm anything but an expert on scanners.
That said, the situation is about to change here at
Low End Mac headquarters. I have a Brother all-in-one laser printer,
copier, and color scanner (MFC-7420) en route. I was tempted by a
Canon, but my research indicated that it didn't support scanning on
Macs. Anyhow, it has an optical resolution of 600 x 2400 dpi and an
automatic document feeder.
I don't know if the document feeder will be suitable
for snapshots, but I'll give it a try. I have hundreds (perhaps
thousands) of old photos I'd like to scan and burn to CD for my sons.
Since I doubt any of these will ever be printed bigger than 8x10, 600
dpi is going to be more than enough resolution to do them justice.
The only scanner I know of that's designed for photos
is the
Fujitsu SnapScan S510M, which retails for US$495 (Fujitsu also has
a $50 mail-in rebate through the end of March). It's currently
available from
Amazon.com for US$405. Users rave over it, saying it has taken the
agony out of scanning - and it's even compatible with Mac OS X
10.2.8.
It's not cheap, but if I could justify the cost, it
would be my hands-down choice.
But I don't expect to do that much scanning. We do
need a copier, which is our justification for this purchase, and I've
been very happy with my Brother
HL-5250DL, which has served me well for 1-1/2 years. (I prefer
laser printers to inkjet, as they're not only faster but much cheaper
to use in the long term.)
I'll know a lot more about scanners and scanning
software soon. I do know that some programs let you scan a whole
flatbed full of photos at once and save them as separate images, but I
haven't researched any further than that.
Dan
Dan Knight has been publishing Low
End 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.
