Tiger Runs Well on a Blue & White G3
From Bill:
Oh Dan,
No, no no.
Ronald Lanham says not to Tigerize a 350
B&W G3. I believe this is very bad advice. Up here at the
senior center, where nobody ever donates the latest and greatest, we
received one of those baddy first generation 350 B&W G3s.
After the disappointment of discovering its chipset had the bad
numbers, we said what the 'ell and put it to work anyway. We created
our master Tiger software load on an external drive mounted to a Mac
mini. We've also done this using an iMac G5. Then we clone this master
over and over again sticking one in any variety of Mac with a G in its
name or on its motherboard. We call them G-whiz Macs.
We installed one of our cloned drives into the 350 B&W G3. Works
fine. Always has. Ours has 448 MB of RAM, if that matters. We use this
this one and only 350 B&W intensely as our bench hack. We now clone
most of our drives from it, test parts, try new softwares, try
different software configurations, summons on-line tech support, trial
new gadgets (currently both the USB and PCI wireless devices from
Edimax reported on Low End Mac are being trialed), even do a little one
on one teaching with it.
All of this is bad risky stuff. And our stock v1 350 B&W is
working just fine running Tiger. I suspect Ron and others reporting
problems have some other problem than Tiger or the B&W itself.
Bill
Bill,
Clever setup. It's a real plus if you can set up the
OS X drive in another computer, in which case I've heard of amazing
success. We're primarily addressing people who are setting up an older
Mac and may not have an OS X Mac up and running that they can use.
For those who can do what you're doing, which avoids a lot of install
problems, it's a great solution.
Dan
Leopard Would Never Be a Good Choice for G3
Macs
From Andrew Main:
Dan,
So far as I'm concerned, 10.5 will change nothing for G3 Macs I work
on, as I ordinarily install 10.3.9 on them. While it's true that most
G3s can run 10.4, I've found the latter to strain their
capabilities somewhat; rather than push computers to their limit by
installing the very latest software they can run, I prefer to use
software they can run comfortably and thereby optimize performance.
This has always been my policy, in the classic Mac days as well (for
instance, I'd leave a Mac Plus or
SE at System 6, even though they can
run 7 if maxed and pushed).
Similarly, though I know (most) G4 Macs will be able to run 10.5,
I'll probably recommend staying with 10.4 on those models for best
performance. (I suppose it's just coincidence that the numbers match:
10.3 for G3, 10.4 for G4; I've found that even < 500 MHz G4s seem to
be happy with 10.4, while even 900 MHz G3s feel like they're straining
a little to keep up with its demands.)
I'll probably put 10.5 on my 2
GHz MacBook Pro, but I'll be watching carefully to see how it
performs, as Apple's software seems to be getting more bloated and
power-hungry all the time. The Intel Macs are the first models that
seem to run OS X comfortably, though even they still don't
approach the snappy performance of my 500
MHz G3 'Pismo' PowerBook with OS 9.
Andrew Main
Andrew,
Thanks so much for writing and sharing your common
sense approach to matching hardware and operating system. I've done the
same balancing act myself, such as trying the System 7 beta (under NDA)
on my Mac Plus, only to decide after a few days that it was too slow.
Of course, once I got the Plus accelerated to 16 MHz, System 7 was just
fine.
For me, OS X was sluggish until I got my current
desktop, a dual 1 GHz G4 Power Mac. With
lots of RAM and a big, fast hard drive, the operating system just flies
most of the time - and I often have 15-20 apps open at once, including
Classic Mode. I'm sure that's part of the reason the Intel transition
has been so successful; a second core means nothing really bogs down
the whole computer.
Even then, it doesn't compare to the snap of the
Classic Mac OS.
I have to agree that in general, G3 Macs run best with
OS X 10.3, G4s with 10.4. We'll know a lot more about 10.5 come October
or November.
Dan
G3 Macs in the Age of Leopard
From Dave Maloney:
Dan and Co.
Hola, I have been a Low End Mac fan for years, but the G3 in the Age of Leopard Series have
been among the best things Low End Mac have ever done. One of the great
things about Macs is their longevity, and telling folks how to get the
most out of old hardware is in many ways a great public service.
I am the proud owner of a 200 dollar iBook G3 600 MHz. I picked it up from the
surplus sales department of my undergraduate alma mater, Northern
Arizona University. It came with AirPort and 640 MB of RAM, so I
haven't had to do a darn thing to it. It's a great little road warrior,
running 10.4.10 at the moment. I honestly was shocked at how well it
runs the very latest Mac OS update. I had no intention of updating the
OS beyond 10.4.5, but an iTunes update forced me to do so. I've noticed
a substantial speed increase over 10.4.5: windows snap open, Flash
animations actually play rather than jerk across the screen. I am a
Doctor of Veterinary Medicine by day, Mac user since 1987, and mostly
use my iBook to stream internet radio while in surgery. It works a
charm.
Thanks for keeping the low end such an important part of the Mac web
scene. I honestly think most things people use computers for (other
than video editing) can be accomplished just as well on older Mac
hardware. I will stick to Tiger for the iBook after reading the
articles, but encourage your G3 readers not to be too shy of Tiger. Max
out your RAM, turn off Spotlight, and get rid of Dashboard, and its as
snappy as Panther.
Dr. Dave Maloney, DVM
Dave,
Thanks for writing. I've run Tiger on G3s - a 366 MHz
clashell iBook and a couple of 400-500 MHz iMacs - and have to say that
performance is okay. Like you, I turn of Dashboard. I don't understand
the fascination with Widgets. Regular searches suit me just fine, so I
don't use Spotlight except on my production Mac and MacBook Pro. Once
it's indexed, it's not such a performance hit, but still, I don't
generally need it.
I really enjoyed writing the series and hope to turn
my attention to G4 Macs in coming days. There it's not so much a
question of can they run Leopard but can the run it well.
Thanks again for your kind words.
Dan
Has Apple Gone Insane?
From Joseph Burke:
OK, so we know all about the fact that Apple is planning to dump
support for the G3 in Leopard, but now I find out they are also
planning to drop support for all G4's slower than 867mhz. Are they out
of their minds? Read the Wiki entry here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_OS_X_v10.5
This cuts out a lot more Mac owners than previously envisioned. I
don't see how Apple expects to sell enough copies of Leopard when they
are cutting so many potential buyers out of the loop. I certainly hope
someone comes up with a way to bypass the installer when it goes to
check for CPU speed.
Joseph,
First, remember that Wikipedia is not authoritative,
and when you're dealing with something like hardware requirements for
an unreleased operating system where even the developer hasn't give any
public information, you have to take things with several grains of
salt.
What you're looking at are system requirements for the
Developer Edition, a beta of the forthcoming Mac OS X 10.5. That's
been a moving target, with earlier versions saying 256 MB of RAM for
PowerPC Macs and 800 MHz G4 or faster. Bear in mind that betas and
Developer Editions often have additional code for error checking and
reporting that won't be in the final release.
Things like CPU speed are especially arbitrary. What
one user finds excruciatingly slow another might find adequately fast.
If Apple draws the line at 800 MHz or 867 MHz for the release version
of Leopard, which I hope they won't do, it may still be possible to run
it on older, slower G4 Macs.
Dan
Leopard Runs on Some Older Macs
From SS:
Hi Dan,
This weekend I had the opportunity to play with a Developer's
Edition of Leopard (I forget which build). The installer would not run
on my stock G4 Cube, stating that the
machine did not make minimum spec. An 867 MHz G4 is required.
I took a drive and hooked it to my wife's G5 iMac in a miniStack to
try the installer. It took about 30 min to install without any extras
(printer drivers, languages, etc). After installation, I hooked to my
Cube, and the external booted no problem.
Finder response was okay. iTunes' new visualizers brought my Geforce
to it's knees. I suspect that it's all related to Core Image. When I
checked the profiler, all the CE stuff was rendered in software, though
Quartz is still supported.
Appletalk still works, and the Cube found my Laserwriter and bridge without any
problems.
The activity monitor shows high cpu use when Safari, iTunes,
Azureus, and the Finder are all doing their thing. There's no real lag,
though.
As a final test, I tried the HD as an internal in my upgraded
Blue and White (G4 450MHz ZIF with 800+
megs of RAM). I got the white boot screen for a while, and then the
circle and a slash symbol. No booting of Leopard on my B&W.
Just figured you'd like some information on this in light of the
recent articles.
SS
S,
Thanks for sharing your findings. It's wonderful to
know that Leopard (at least the current Developer Edition) can run on a
Cube - and very likely other Macs built with a G4 CPU as well.
Dan
Leopard and G3 Macs
From a reader who wishes to remain anonymous.
Dear Mr. Knight,
I think you are jumping the gun as far as Leopard's lack of support
of G3 Macs. In fact Apple has made no announcement regarding the
minimum system specs. What is operational under Developer release is
strictly nondisclosure, and Apple may offer optimizations at the last
second that could include the G3 Mac. I think your article today on Low
End Mac is jumping the gun. Unless you have an official Apple link
stating otherwise, don't assume G3 Mac support is gone.
Anonymous,
Apple hasn't made made any public claims about
hardware requirements for OS X. However, it's widely reported that
the developer preview requires a G4, G5, or Intel CPU as well as a DVD
drive, built-in FireWire, 256 MB of RAM (512 MB for Intel), and at
least 6 GB of available disk space. Others are reporting that the
CPU must be 800 MHz or faster.
Many are reporting that the new Finder is so dependent
on Core Image support that it can't run without AltiVec, which rules
out G3s.
Now system requirements are a bit flexible. Just
because Apple says 800 MHz doesn't mean it won't work on a 733 MHz
Power Mac G4 or a dual 533. It could even run on a 350 MHz G4,
although I suspect it would seem very sluggish.
Much as I would love to see Leopard running on G3
Macs, the consensus is that it's not going to be supported - and it may
not even be possible using hacked installers, as many have done with
earlier versions of OS X using XPostFacto.
We're proceeding on the assumption that Leopard will
not be directly installable on any G3 Mac that doesn't have a G4
upgrade, which very few accept. It may well be that Leopard cannot run
on a G3 Mac, which would be a shame but is a very real possibility.
We're advising our readers to be prepared for a future
where G3 Macs may not be able to run the current version of the Mac OS
- and also that for many older Macs, even the current Tiger OS is
pushing things.
Dan
iMac Video Devolution
From Bob Forsberg:
Dan
Thought you might want to know about this from Hard Mac
Friday September 14, 2007
- New iMac 24": Disappointing LCD Panel and GPU? -
Eric - 19:34:20 - Comments
One of our readers, Joe B., sent us his comments after
comparing the previous iMac 24" Nvidia GF and the new iMac 24" Alu:
We just compared these side-by-side:
- The new iMac is significantly LESS bright at maximum setting than
the older model, contrary to what I have seen written on the Web.
- The ATI GPU in the new iMac is about 1/2 to 1/3 as fast as the
Nvidia GPU in the old iMac for volume rendering (tested with a 3D data
set in OsiriX).
- The glare from the new screen is a distraction for professionals in
the medical and graphics industries. I sure looks handsome, though, and
will likely attract PC converts.
- The 2.8 GHz processor speeds routine computing tasks by about 20%,
as expected. We like this, but it does not make up for the
shortcomings.
- Overall, I am quite disappointed in the new iMac for my intended
use - medical imaging.
We decided to publish this news as it illustrates how
the success of the iMac among Pro users can be a problem with Apple
when Cupertino decides to use low-end components (such as LCD panel) in
its customer-oriented hardware. Here, iMacs are being used in a Pro
environment (medical imaging, MRI) including defined procedures, and
not simply evaluated based the glare of the flashy display or he
aluminum design. This information associated with the previous report
about the low quality 20" LCD panel in the new iMac 20" make us
suspecting that Apple is either having problems with some series or
supply for components, or simply forgot that before being a nice device
to watch, a computer is primary a working tool for most users.
We will keep following the story as it is still
unknown if the new ATI drivers included in today's Mac Software Update
1.1 could significantly improve 3D rendering and GPU performance.
Bob,
Thanks for sharing that. We're not gamers here, so we
haven't paid a lot of attention to GPUs found in modern Macs (except to
note that the Intel GMA 950 integrated graphics are substandard for
gaming). A quick visit to Bare Feats shows that the
older 2.33 GHz 24" iMac outperforms the new top-end 2.8 GHz iMac in 3D
gaming tests, with frame rates ranging from about 10% to nearly 150%
higher. Even more interesting, the older Radeon X1600 beat the newer
X2400 on most 3D gaming benchmarks.
It's sad to see Apple taking backward steps when it
comes to graphics performance when its Intel-based Macs had the
potential to take on the Windows world, especially considering how Macs
are widely perceived as more expensive.
Fortunately the Mac has a whole lot more going for it
that hardware performance. I guess most of us (hard core gamers
excepted) would rather have the Mac experience than the highest
benchmark scores.
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.
