Virtual PC Works with Leopard
From Brian G. Reilly in response to Leopard Is Not the Way to Go on G4
Macs:
Hey Dan,
I've been reading Low End Mac for years now, and I've always wanted
to chime in and now I think I'll start too. I'm a huge fan of using
older Apple equipment.
Anyway, I was reading LEM today and I believe Mr. Davis is in error.
VPC works wonderfully in Leopard on my 1.8 GHz DP G5. The only thing
"broken" in Leopard is the DVD/CD-ROM support, which can actually be
remedied - by installing Apple's Boot Camp Windows drivers. I've been
using this for months, and I can verify this works.
There is one last thing I've wanted to make the Mac Community
(mainly PowerPC users) aware of concerning VPC. Even with all the
overhead of converting Intel code into something the PowerPC registers
can understand, Word 2007 launches faster in Windows XP on my Power Mac
than Word 2008 does in OS X. I think this goes to show that the
PowerPC isn't as underpowered as people think, it's just (sadly) not as
optimized anymore.
Sincerely,
Brian G. Reilly
Brian,
Thanks for the good news about VirtualPC and G5
Macs.
I've got Office 2004 on my dual 1 GHz Power Mac G4,
and I am appalled at how long it takes Word to launch. I have a feeling
the Microsoft does nothing to optimize performance on Macs. Just one
more reason to consider buying a copy of Pages.
Dan
How Fast Are Intel Macs?
From Dave:
Hi Dan,
I run a home based video shop transferring VHS home movies to DVDs.
At this point in time I run two 466 G4s and one gigahertz G4 heavily
upgraded along with a Miglia FireWire converter box. I run all the
video in on one machine, then transfer to the others for encoding. I
average usually about 6 hours of video a day, but it takes about 12
hours a day to get this much done. My question to you is how much
faster would an Intel Mac encode the DVDs over my current set up?
Because I would love to get a lot more done in a lot less time if it's
at all possible. It seems all the sites I've found in comparing Macs
never show how much faster they encode DVDs. So if you have any info on
this, I would be greatly thankful.
By the way I just want to thank you for a great site. I know over
the years your site has helped me out a lot. Have a great day.
Dave,
It took some digging, but I found a comparison using the
universal binary version of iDVD 6 on a 2.0 GHz Core Duo iMac against
as dual 2.0 GHz Power Mac G5. Encoding video, Bare Feats found that the
Power Mac outperformed the Intel iMac: 410 seconds vs. 477. That was
two years ago, and we've gone to Intel Core 2 Duo and faster clock
speeds since then.
Assuming your 1 GHz G4 has one-third the power of the
2.0 GHz G5 (based on
Geekbench numbers) and that Core 2 Duo is 7% more efficient than
Core Duo, I'd expect today's 2.0 GHz Mac mini to do the conversion work
in 1/3 the time your 1 GHz G4 requires.
That said, burning the DVD itself after all of that
work may not be any faster.
Dan
Aluminum iMac CPU Upgrades
From Bradley S. Smith:
Dan, I have been navigating to your site for years and think it's
great. Recently I came to your site to look at the profile page of the
iMac I am currently using; it's a first generation Aluminum iMac with a
2.4 Core 2 Duo processor and the HD2600 Radeon graphics card. I wanted
to know what processor upgrades are available for my machine. I was
disappointed to see your profile page says "none at present". I believe
this information is probably incorrect. I have a couple of questions I
hope you can answer:
- What socket does my Aluminum iMac processor use?
- If iMac processors can be upgraded, why is there so little
information available on the Web?
I think your site is great and hope you will print your response on
Low End Mac.
Thanks,
Bradley S. Smith
Bradley,
Nobody markets upgrades for Intel Macs for the simple
reason that the models that have the CPU in a socket can be upgraded
with nothing more than a CPU. Unlike the old days, there's no longer a
need for special cards and drivers. There are numerous stories of
people putting faster CPUs in their Intel Macs.
To the best of my knowledge, the CPUs in all desktop
Intel-based Macs are in sockets, so upgrading is a definite
possibility. The Mac mini uses Socket M, and I've heard that the iMac
also uses it, but I have no confirmation of this. This would be useful
information to post on our profiles, but Apple doesn't publish it.
Dan
Compact Flash in a PowerBook 2400
From Joseph Sis, following up on CF in PowerBooks via Adapter:
Thanks for the feedback.
What about this scenario?
I just finished testing the same dual CF adapter in my PowerBook 2400. I was happy to find
that the 'extra' pin is not a problem as the 2400 connector does not
have that pin blocked out. However, the 2400 connector is hard mounted
to the motherboard, so the CF adapter really only fits in one way. It
does not work that way, I did manage to get it wedged in there flipped
over (the other way) and it worked somewhat. Flipped over, of course, I
would not be able to close the PowerBook, as the CF adapter is in at an
odd angle. Also, the PB only recognizes 1 of the 2 CF cards. I did
several tests to confirm this all with the same results.
Any suggestions? Perhaps someone makes a flexible connector that
could go between the MB and the CF.
Also, any ideas on why the PB only sees one of the CF cards? Is
Master/Slave on issue on this particular IDE bus in the 2400?
I guess if I can't get it to work in the 2400, I will pull the pin
as you suggest and install it in the 2300, the 5 GB Seagate Type
II card I have would be a great replacement for the 1.13 GB hard drive
in there.
Thanks,
joe
Joe,
The IDE bus isn't reversible, so putting the adapter
in the wrong way should mean it won't recognize the device - which
appears to be what's happening in your case. You'll probably need to
get a short cable, such as the 5" 44-pin IDE Laptop
Hard Drive Extension Cable from Cables Online.
I don't know a lot about the PowerBook 2400c, but I'm
guessing that it may have a single IDE/ATA bus, the hard drive and
CD-ROM being the two supported devices. If that's the case, it would
explain why you can't see a second card - IDE doesn't support more than
two devices on a single bus.
Dan
Dan,
Thanks, that cable looks perfect. I was on that site last night but
did not come across the correct cable.
Ah, but the 2400 does not have a CD-ROM. Perhaps it simply can't do
2 IDE items, much like the early Beige G3 towers, probably likely since
this is a PPC machine to start. Bummer.
I noticed the Addonics site does not mention any caveat for their 2
CF adapter regarding the IDE bus on older PowerBooks. Oh well, once I
get the cable I will be happy with a single CF in there. Now I just
need to be able to afford a larger CF card, I had been planning on two
5 GB Seagate cards (secretly hoping they would format as a single
10 GB partition).
Thanks again for the info and especially the cable reference.
Keep up the quality work.
joe
Joe,
I don't think Addonics has old Macs to test things in.
They design their adapters to work, but they just don't have access to
every old computer to try them in - which is why it's nice when we can
report what works here on Low End Mac.
Dan
We Need Internal Optical Drives
From Dwain Elliott:
You asked, "Do you think the Mac mini would become an even better
seller if Apple left out the optical drive?"
I think it would be madness to do that. I haven't heard anyone
complain that the Mini is too big! The changes I suggest are 3.5"
drives (instead of the current 2.5" ones) to reduce the cost and
improve (relative) performance, and (at least) the Intel X310 graphics
processor as you said. Removing the SuperDrive would be another
compromise that would add to the problem instead of solving one.
The "prosumer
Mac" that you wrote about earlier is definitely a much-needed
model, and the goal for the Mac mini is for it to be the best (and most
complete) entry-level Mac it can be, at the lowest possible cost.
Dwain,
With the MacBook Air, Apple demonstrated that there is
a market for a thin-and-light MacBook without an optical drive. With
the iMac - way back in 1998 - Apple demonstrated that there was a
market for a computer without a floppy drive. Between Remote Disc and
being able to buy music and video content from the
iTunes Store, Apple may soon decide that optical drives are no long
a necessary standard feature. The "almost a Mac" Apple TV already sells
without one.
As for 3.5" drives, there just isn't room for one in
the current Mac mini. I'd far rather have seen Apple make the mini 1/2"
larger and used less costly, generally faster 3.5" drives, but it
wasn't to be.
Dan
Death to Optical Drives!
From Scott Cook:
Dan,
Apple should eliminate the optical drive(s) in all their computers
or come up with some way to eject a disc that failed to mount. I sin
profusely every time I have to reboot my otherwise rock solid reliable
Mac just to eject a CD or DVD. I read about people who keep their Macs
running for months without rebooting. They must never use CDs or DVDs?
The only way to get the disc out of the drive is to kill the whole
computer and all the applications and projects you're currently working
on and hold the mouse down while your Mac reboots. It happens to me so
often, and it's sooo infuriating!
Windows is way ahead in this area. I can press the button on the CD
drive of my Windows beige box, and out comes my CD. The best solution
I've found is using an external optical drive with my Mac. If the disc
fails to mount or otherwise won't come out, I can reboot my external
optical drive only and press the eject button before my Mac tries to
mount the disc again. The disc comes right out in a matter of seconds.
I know I'm not the only person to have this problem. It's a real
pain....
Sorry to go off on a rant! (laugh)
Scott Cook
Scott,
You've run into one place where the Mac's smarts
actually work against it. Ever since the first Macintosh shipped, the
Mac OS has always mounted every available volume - floppy disk, hard
drive, optical disk, flash drive, etc. This is the direct opposite of
how DOS and early versions of Windows operated: you could pop in a
floppy, a flash drive, or an optical disc, and the computer wouldn't
even know it was there until you told it to access it.
That's why Windows PCs have no problem with you
ejecting a disk - even if there might be open files. Macs are designed
to prevent that kind of behavior and will warn you if you try to
unmount a disk with active files.
Dan
My external CD/DVD drive gives me the ability to eject a messed up
disc without rebooting my Mac. I think Apple should drop the internal
CD/DVD drives altogether if they insist on letting the Mac OS handle
discs the way it does currently. All the Mac mini really needs is a
3.5" hard drive (or two) and perhaps a PCI expansion slot to be a
useful computer for someone like me. External FireWire CD/DVD drives
are definitely the way to go for any Mac. I wouldn't miss the internal
CD/DVD drive at all.
Scott Cook
A Bigger and Better Mac mini
From Jason Packer:
You know I was leaning in the other direction on this. Instead of
going small, grab those people who want a little expansion room and
instead make the Mac mini into a double-height unit and just call it
the Mac. 6.5" x 6.5" x 4" is plenty of room. You get rid of the 2.5"
drive and repurpose that space, plus the additional overhead room, into
a single 3.5" drive and a single PCIe x16 slot. Upgrade the rest of the
internals much as you suggested. Add the necessary cooling to support
those new features.
Now you've got a machine that'll go to 4 GB of RAM, hold a
1 TB hard drive (or more as they grow), and when you're getting
ready for some gaming, throw in an 8800 GT video card and you're ready
to rock.
It's not quite a minitower, and it's not exactly got room for
several 5.25" drives or even a second hard drive, but it'll bring them
in by the car-full to have a Mac that has the option to grow some but
still fits neatly on your window sill or in your entertainment
center.
Jason,
As I was writing that column, I remembered one of the
most unexpected third-party Mac accessories ever - the MicroMac LC Power
WorkStation, and expansion chassis for the Mac LC and LC II that
included a 32 MHz 68030 upgrade, two available LC Processor Direct
Slots, drive bays for a second hard drive and an optical drive, and
even an optional extra power supply for those extra drives you could
add.
Anyhow, that got me to wondering, what if something
similar existed for the next generation Mac mini? Well, Apple would
have to include room for a PCIe slot or a riser card - and it went on
from there.
I don't think size is nearly as big an issue as Steve
Jobs thinks - the 7.7" Apple TV/Time Capsule footprint is just as
attractive as the 6.5" Mac mini footprint.
Dan
Beyond Beyond the Mac mini
From Julian Skidmore:
Hi Dan,
Your "Beyond the Mac mini" article reminded me of my 7-year-old
ultra-cut down iMac concept called iBase. So I did a blog on it.
http://oneweekwonder.blogspot.com/2008/05/think-ahead-think-ibase.html
In terms of your article the iBase is equivalent to such a machine
slotted into a small screen. Stick it on a wall in a kitchen; a child's
desk or a small coffee table and away you go.
Anyway, I liked your article,
-cheers from Julz @P
Julz,
I like your "out of the box" thinking. I sometimes
wonder if we might no see a return to the old days when the computer
was the keyboard - think back to the Commodore VIC-20 and 64, the Atari
ST series, and a few others that packed the computer beneath the
keyboard, and you have another picture of what a wireless computer
without an optical drive could be. Just be sure to include a trackpad
or "eraserhead" pointer.
Dan
Mac mini on Steroids
From Scott Birdwell:
Hey, Dan!
I've been a LEM reader for years now and get a number of the
Digests. I also own two Mac mini's, and they are my fastest, most
modern Macs. I read your article about the Mac mini with interest. I
agree with your points:
"The Mac mini is Apple's most out-of-date computer,
the only one still using a 667 MHz system bus, the only one still using
Intel GMA 950 graphics, the only one with 802.11g wireless. It's due for
an overhaul to the 800 MHz system bus, the Santa Rosa chipset, the
Penryn CPU, 802.11n WiFi, and the less than exciting Intel X3100
graphics processor (at least it's better than GMA 950).
"Maybe run the CPUs as 2.0 GHz on the low end and 2.4
GHz at the top. Include 2 GB of RAM with support for up to 4 GB (this
is still an entry-level system). Redesign it so at least one of the USB
2.0 ports is accessible from the front, perhaps one on each side toward
the front for flash drives, iPods, and other devices you take from
computer to computer."
Personally, the direction I would like to see Apple go with the mini
is not toward an even smaller footprint with no optical drive (a la
Air), but, rather, I would replace the optical drive with a
non-notebook drive and the hard drive with a 3.5" "regular" SATA drive.
These changes would enhance performance, though necessitate a larger
footprint (but not that much larger than the present one). I think it
would easily allow the upgrades you suggested, specifically the
graphics card upgrade (the Intel GMA X3100 graphics processor would be
an improvement, but let's get away from the shared memory/integrated
graphics cards. How about a 128 meg nonintegrated card?) and the USB
2.0 port in front. You could incorporate one or two of the small
profile expansion ports. Apparently Apple wants to avoid a mid-price
expandable tower for reasons known only to them. However, this Mac
"Micro" would still be very distinctively different than the generic PC
minitowers on the market. It might be an inch wider and taller than the
mini, but it would scream, and I suspect that it would have to cost
much, if any, more than the mini. I would welcome your thoughts.
Scott Birdwell
Scott,
Apple has a new form factor, the 7.7" footprint share
by Apple TV and Time Capsule. This would be the perfect size for a more
expandable version of the Mac mini, something a bit more expandable
that would cut into Mac Pro sales in the least.
I have no idea why Apple is avoiding the middle of the
market. Even the iMac has finally gained an expansion slot, although
only the 24" model - and only for a better graphics card.
Dan
A 7.7" footprint would be just perfect for the Mac "Micro!" If they
would make the changes we suggested, I bet it could sell for maybe
$999.99 and go like hot cakes for all the Vista/Windoze weary folks.
The time is ripe for something like this.
Scott
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.
