Nice Work
After reading Why Apple's Blue &
White G3 Is a Best Buy, Paul Bissex comments:
I just wanted to say that since LEM started offering an RSS feed,
I've been following your machine evaluations. It's great stuff - I've
been thinking about a cheap third machine for the office, and a B&W
G3 now seems like the ticket.
By the way, if you have written any articles with advice on
cheap-yet-really-usable-under-OS X machines I'd be interested.
Both for myself, and for potential mention on the Forwarding Address:
OS X (saladwithsteve.com/osx) blog.
We've been doing the feed for maybe a year, but until recently it
was always cobbled together by hand when I found the time to do it. I
realized I'd sometimes miss a whole week - and decided it was time to
automate the process. (See Creating an RSS
News Feed with PHP and MySQL.)
Now I just need to remember to run the script a few times a day, and
soon we'll have it set up as a cron job that runs automatically.
The whole idea behind last week's articles was to address the strengths
and limitations of these computers both as classic Mac OS boxes and as
OS X machines. The beige G3 really qualifies as usable under
OS X, but it has so many bottlenecks that it makes more sense
economically to buy a b&w G3 and eliminate the need for a faster
IDE card, a better video card, etc.
I'd consider the blue & white the ideal low-cost computer for those
who want to get into Mac OS X. It's got good performance from the
box and lots of upgrade potential. Bang for the buck, it's probably the
best thing going that is fully supported under OS X.
Which AGP cards for Sawtooth?
After reading Looking for a Power
Mac G4? Here's Why You Want an AGP Model, Gregg wants to know:
Which current or used AGP video cards are compatible with my
"Sawtooth" as your article mentioned? (Apple tech says none except what
shipped with the machine).
I have the Sawtooth, the first G4 with AGP, yet I cannot find any
current (or used) third-party video cards that fit my AGP slot.
Apple, ATI, Nvidia, and the discussion boards seems to be a "black
hole" of info about this machine (Sawtooth, vertically aligned audio
ports).
All ATI and Nvidia Mac video AGP card have a fourth "tooth" that
does not fit in my AGP slot, which is divided into only three
sections.
Specifically, I am trying to run Apple's 20" LCD. I have already
bought two video cards (listed on the monitor's box as supported) to no
avail.
Apple tech says the machine cannot accept any current (or used) AGP
card except the one shipped with it.
This is the first I've heard about the AGP slot in the Sawtooth
being physically different from the AGP slot used in other computers.
AGP is supposed to be an industry standard.
Rob Art Morgan of Bare Feats has had no problems installing alternate
AGP video cards in his Sawtooth Rev. 1 machine - read the benchmark
results in How about
giving your old Sawtooth a faster graphics card?
This is a completely different issue from what you're facing. The box
on a monitor won't tell you diddly about what computer a compatible
card will work on, only what cards are compatible. The problem you're
running into has to do with the Sawtooth being an older computer that
doesn't support ADC, Apple's digital display interface, which provides
not only video, but also power to a monitor.
For that to work, the video card needs the "fourth tooth" so it can
send the power the monitor needs. Without that support, the Sawtooth
models are unable to power Apple's ADC monitors regardless of what
video card you may purchase.
Your options are to buy a conventional display that isn't powered from
the video card or move up to a "Gigabit Ethernet" or newer G4 that
provides the extra circuitry needed to power an Apple monitor.
Now that I've learned about this issue, I'll be sure to update the Sawtooth
profile.
Wireless Networking for Older Macs
Andy King writes:
I was just reading your article Fast Ethernet Surprise, Mozilla HTML
Editor Useful, Comments on Beige G3 and Blue & White G3, and
More and noticed you had a section called AirPort for Older
iMacs.
Another solution that will be coming down the pipes that will work
for older iMacs and older Macs is an ethernet-to-wireless (Airport
Extreme) bridge: http://www.linksys.com/splash/wet54g_splash.asp
When the USB to wireless Wi-Fi bridge came out, I wonder why no one
came out with this ethernet-to-wireless bridge, since most older
computers have ethernet, even when they do not have USB. Also, most
modern computers ship with ethernet, and a USB-to-wireless bridge takes
away USB bandwidth. This bridge would work on any computer that does
not have modern I/O slots (PCI, USB), such as old Macintoshes, PCs, and
Unix boxes.
Thought you would like to know about this solution.
That's exactly the solution we suggested, since field reports on
USB-to-wireless adapters have not been encouraging. Lots more details
on 802.11g wireless networking in Extreme Wireless for
Older Macs.
Thank for the additional rationale for using ethernet instead of
USB.
Response to Unexpected Results
In response to Unexpected Results
with Fast Ethernet, Adam Hope writes:
It appears to me that the reader [Adrian Abraham] has a 7300, a G3, and a Pentium III
linked together through a 10 Mbps hub. If this is in fact the case,
there is no way the 10/100 ethernet card he bought for the G3 will be
running at 100 Mbps; it will still be running at 10 Mbps. Any
improvement in speed is therefor entirely due to the ethernet cards
efficiency compared to the G3's onboard ethernet.
I'll go out on a limb :) and assume the 7300 is running
OS 9. The P III is also reasonably new hardware; I'll assume
it has a 10/100 NIC. If this is the case, he should put the old 3Com
NIC in the 7300 and replace the hub with a 10/100 one. By the time he's
sold the old one, the cost of the upgrade will be minimal, and this way
all the computers really will see a boost in network performance and
will actually be running at a higher speed, 100 Mbps.
It would be interesting if he could provide some simple timed tests
to see how much of a difference swapping in the Apple NIC really
made.
We had so many problems with Apple's onboard ethernet on PCI Power
Macs and later models at my last job that we finally just threw in the
towel and bought a new Farallon 10/100 card for each computer. Apple's
onboard ethernet implementations have been troublesome ever since the
world began moving from plain old 10Base-T to autosensing switched and
hubs.
AGP 4x a problem in Sawtooth?
On the subject of AGP video, Craig Harris emailed me:
Thanks for the article on the AGP G4. I'm buying one of these, which
should arrive in a few weeks. I have a question regarding AGP card
options.
I'm a bit concerned, as a friend of mine with a PC damaged his
motherboard by using a faster AGP card with a slower AGP slot. I
previously thought any AGP card was compatible with the AGP slot -
maybe it's a different story with G4 Macs compared to PCs?
With the AGP G4/400, it's got a 2x AGP slot, but do you know if I
can safely use a current ATI or GeForce 4 card without any problems?
Since these are used with the current G4s I assume they're 4x or 8x.
I'd rather get a 64 MB AGP card with 2 outputs if its compatible (ideal
for OS X Quartz Extreme) than get a 2nd 16 MB Rage 128 Pro card
for my dual monitor setup.
I've never worked with Power Macs more recent than the Sawtooth G4,
and in those days, there were no Mac AGP cards that weren't 4x. As I
understand it, faster AGP cards should automatically fall back to the
slower bus speed. I haven't paid much attention to this area, but I
haven't heard any horror stories, either.
You might want to ask around on our
G-List mailing list, which supports those with G3 and G4 Power
Macs, and on the Macintosh Guy's G4 List, which is
specific to G4 Power Macs and CPU upgrades.
Blue & White G3, Revision 2
Peter Lindsay comments:
Great article on the venerable Blue and White G3! Mine is still
functioning and running OS X (10.2.4) beautifully after multiple
upgrades (XLR8 500 G4 processor, 1 GB of RAM, Dual ATI Radeon 7000
video cards, two IBM GXP drives, ATTO Ultra-wide SCSI card running an
32 GB RAID, Sony CD-RW drive, and Iomega Zip drive).
The key point to emphasize in buying one of these boxes is to make
sure you get a revision 2 machine. The disk corruption problems with
the version 1 make them useless for serious upgrades. The revision 2 is
truly one of the finest machines Apple has ever made.
Thanks for the information. Accelerate
Your Mac! has a marvelous piece that explains and shows the
differences. In short, the Rev. 2 includes a faster video card (100 MHz
vs. 75), a place to mount a second hard drive above the original one, a
revised IDE controller, and a bigger heat sink.
Since components can be swapped from one Mac to another, the best way
to make sure you're getting a Rev. 2 motherboard is the "402" marking
on the CMD646 IDE controller chip.
Good thing the b&w G3 has that drawbridge design, making it easier
to gain access to the motherboard and other internals.
An alternative to wireless networking
Instead of the high cost of wireless networking, Bob Buchanan
suggests:
An alternative to wireless to get ethernet into another part of the
house is HomePNA devices.
Farallon, among others, makes ethernet bridges, USB devices, and PCI
cards. They run over standard telephone wiring, coexisting with voice
phones. I've used them. There are 1 meg and 10 meg versions, so you can
get full 10 meg speed. Could be cheaper to get two of these bridges
(around $100 each) than to get a wireless base and bridge unit.
I know he was specifically asking about wireless, but he was also
asking how to get his iMac working from the bedroom.
HomePNA was designed to offer the simplicity of PhoneNet and
ethernet while offering better speed than LocalTalk and less cost than
ethernet. With ethernet dirt cheap, it never really caught on.
HomePNA lets you use existing phone wires to network your computers,
something that may be familiar to Mac users from the PhoneNet era. If
the wires are already in place, this can be less costly than an 802.11g
hub and access point.
More on wireless networking
On the same subject, Ed Hurtley writes:
Hey, I recently went through this myself and actually ended up in
Charles Moore's mailbag over it. His
column from 12/23/02 has information on a Belkin
model that works. That's what I ended up using, and it works great
in OS X.
Also, as far as 802.11g goes, since USB doesn't have enough
bandwidth for .11b, going to .11g would be completely pointless (except
for maintaining an all-.11g network. (Technically, USB has enough
bandwidth, at 12 Mbps compared to .11b's 11 Mbps, but it's never going
to get anywhere near that speed anyway.) And buying a new .11g AP, and
plugging it into the iMac's Ethernet port seems like overkill.
(Besides, it means you have to keep the AP right next to the 'wireless'
Mac!)
As Andy King notes above, the best bet might be to avoid networking
over the USB port. First of all, it's not really designed for that.
Secondly, USB isn't designed to handle any single peripheral that needs
more than 8 Mbps throughput - both 10Base-T ethernet and 11 Mbps
AirPort surpass that rate, which was a deliberate design decision by
those who created USB.
Thirdly, USB is shared bandwidth, so networking via USB means your data
packets are fighting for bandwidth with your mouse, keyboard, printer,
scanner, graphics tablet, or any other device you may have connected to
the USB port.
Although it's possible to network via USB, it makes more sense to use
the port designed for networking when possible. Given the choice, I'd
go with ethernet instead of USB.
Maximum RAM in a beige G3
After reading The Value and
Limitations of the Beige G3, Philip De Lancie wonders:
I've been reading some of your informative postings on upgrading a
beige Power Mac G3 desktop machine. I gather that if you want to use
OS X, you should really install 256 MB or more memory. However,
the "Technical Information" pamphlet that came with my machine (and
covers both 233 and 266 models) says, "The maximum amount of DRAM that
you can install in the computer is 192 MB. (This supersedes other
documentation that says you can install a maximum of 384 MB.)" I may
have missed it, but I didn't see this limit mentioned in your writing,
so I'm a bit confused on this point.
I've already got 192 MB, so if that's the limit, I'm not sure
whether the other upgrades (CPU, hard drive, etc.) are worth it if the
machine still won't really perform well with OS X.
Any clarification you could provide would be great, thanks.
Never trust Apple to tell you how much memory a computer can
support. More often that not, higher capacity memory modules will
become available to permit unexpectedly large memory configurations.
Because Apple can't test unavailable memory, they only support memory
configurations they have been able to test.
Low End Mac is not Apple Computer. We don't take Apple's memory limits
as gospel, and when we learn that real users in the field are able to
install higher capacity memory modules, we update our profiles
accordingly. (We also note that what works for one may not work for
all, something we've seen in two seemingly identical iMacs - one
accepts a 256 MB upgrade, the other doesn't.)
As far as we know, the beige G3 isn't subject to these vagaries. Every
one of them seems perfectly happy with 256 MB DIMMs. If you've got
three 64 MB DIMMs in your beige G3, here are your upgrade options (with
today's prices from ramseeker):
• 256 MB (one 128 MB DIMM), $24 and up including
shipping
• 320 MB (two 128 MB DIMMs), $43 and up
• 384 MB (one 256 MB DIMM), $30 and up
• 576 MB (two 256 MB DIMMs), $58 and up
• 768 MB (three 256 MB DIMMs), $85 and up
For less than the cost of Jaguar, you can have 4x as much memory as you
have today and never have to think about upgrading it again.
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.
