iMac 350 Not a Road Apple
From Bill Brown:
Yo Dan,
The writing has been on the wall for some time: LEM is going to slap
the "road apple" label on
the iMac 350. So be it.
But I will give a bit of a rearguard appreciation of the iMac 350
for what it is. Up at the senior center, we have but one iMac 350 in
our collection of maybe 23 or so gumdrop, teardrop, fruit flavored, or
whatever you wish to call the early iMacs. Ours run from the 233s
through the 500s. We have no Dalmatians or Flower Powers.
Our one 350 is very special. It is the first Mac we ever bought new
when they were brand new. The cheapest iMac was the best we could do.
Plunked down right out of the box into the midst of three putty Macs
and three beige peecees, that shiny iMac 350 was no road apple. It was
a screaming doer. The wow factor went on for a couple of years. Today,
it is a just another fruit flavored iMac among our several used for
training.
No FireWire, you say? FireWire in those days defined high-end Macs.
My, how times have changed when, of all people, Low End Mac should
castigate a low-end Mac for not being born with a high-end feature.
Yes, FireWire would be nice now. But back then we had nothing to poke
into a FireWire hole.
It screamed with Mac OS 9.0.4 teasing us with Aqua, the future of
Mac OS X then. And it runs Tiger now. Speaking of now, up here at
the senior center, we are a pedestrian lot and so are our needs for
Mac. Our one iMac 350 cannot be out-typed by anyone (neither could our
SEs when we still had 'em not that long ago). It does online handling
all email and Web surfing tasks with ease, decent speed, and elegance.
It can sort the snapshots and make the grandkids look good in iPhoto
while listening to Neil Diamond in iTunes. Can't burn Neil Diamond, but
that would be stealing music; Steve said "Don't steal music."
We are seeing seniors with iPods these days. Yet the iPod wasn't
anywhere near existing when the iMac 350 came and went. I sure wouldn't
fault an iMac 350 now for not supporting an iPod now. That would be
silly. Nice if it did support the iPod, but silly to fault it for
not.
No Target Disk Mode? Dan, I went to my files reading one of your
recent emails to me where you commented that most LEM people have only
one Mac. Uhh, you can't do Target Disk Mode with only one Mac, so LEM
cannot fault a Mac of the still early FireWire era for not having
FireWire thus not being able to do Target Disk Mode. Not and be LEM,
fella - oops, you are the publisher; yes Dan, you can do anything with
LEM you like. ;^)
We did bump up the memory of our iMac 350 so it would comfortably do
Tiger. At about year two, it's OEM 6 GB hard drive died, which we
replaced with an 80 GB just because they had gotten so cheap. The only
thing cheaper was a 40 GB at maybe $10 less, so 80 it was.
We even plugged in one of those Edimax USB wireless things we read
about in LEM for $68. We plugged it right in to that nearly useless
second USB port on the keyboard. Now this iMac 350 is even wireless.
That oughta be some credit against the lack of FireWire.
Our iMac 350? She's no road apple. She's a working lady.
Bill Brown
Bill,
Road Apples are Apple's compromised designs, and the
greater the compromise, the worse the rating. The much maligned x200
series rates four in terms of overall badness, yet they can be
productive machines and some people never run up against the
compromises Apple engineers made. A "one" rating is hardly bad at all;
it basically means that we've identified one area where the design was
compromised that we believe anyone buying that Mac should know
about.
In the case of the two 350 MHz iMac models, it's the
lack of FireWire. FireWire arrived with the Blue & White G3 in 1998, and Apple considered
it a replacement for SCSI, which had been standard on all Macs since
1986 or so. Thus two of the three iMacs introduced in October 1999 had
it - and one didn't.
The lack of FireWire doesn't make these horrible
computers. In fact, we think they're quite competent performers. But
the lack of FireWire is something the modern iMac buyer should be aware
of, as they might want to attach an iPod, an iSight camera, or an
external hard drive or disc burner. And it can be useful for
troubleshooting as well. (I was able to run Disk Utility on my second
eMac yesterday this way because the computer won't run reliably when
booted, but Target Disk Mode works just fine. The problem isn't the
hard drive.)
With the exception of the x200 Road Apples, where the problems are
at their worst when the computer is used with a modem or on a network,
all of the Road Apples are very usable computers. We just want people
aware of their limitations before making a buying decision.
Dan
Level 2 Cache Far More Important than Level 3
From
In my comment about the ranting of an Intel hater, I also had a
section on L2 vs. L3 cache.
Obviously, if you have identical L2 caches, the processor with L3
cache will be faster. But for processors where the difference is small
L2 with large L3 vs. large (but not quite as large) L2 and
no L3, the one with large L2 will win. As a former employee of
Intel's Enterprise Server group, we saw this regularly. Back in the
days of the first generation of Pentium 4 and Xeon, there were Xeon
processors available with 256 KB of L2 cache, but with off-die half
speed L3 cache up to 2 MB, while the equivalent-core Pentium 4 had
been updated with 512 KB of L2 cache. The Pentium 4 was faster for most
operations, even though it had only 2x the L2 cache and was completely
missing the L3 cache.
Intel still has both L2 and L3 cache processors in some of their
"multiprocessor" Xeons that are based on the older Pentium 4 (the ones
that haven't yet been transitioned to Core 2-based architecture.) They
added the L3 cache because it is easier to add 12 MB of slower L3 cache
than it is to add 4 MB of L2 cache. It takes a significant
amount of L3 to balance even a slight upgrade in L2. That is why
Intel went with such "outrageous" amounts of L3. Because moving from
2 MB L2 to 4 MB L2 would have produced more benefit for the
vast majority of applications, but it is easier from an
engineering standpoint to add a lot more L3. So they cram in the L3 to
make up for the shortcomings of L2.
Also note that AMD takes a completely different approach. They put
the main memory controller in the same die as the processor core and do
away with L3 completely, and even use a very small L2. This makes main
memory faster than going through a conventional front side bus and
chipset. But it is a compromise based largely on inferior manufacturing
ability to Intel. (I'm not being Intel fanboy here; it is a documented
fact that Intel is the best foundry company in the world. When I worked
there, it was a major achievement that Intel had finally produced a
100% "good" wafer, with no bad parts on it. Now they do that regularly,
while almost no other foundries can produce 100% good wafers on even an
inconsistent basis. It would be a big marketing factor to say you can
create flawless wafers on a regular basis.) The lack of ability to
produce large dice easily means it makes sense for AMD to use a smaller
L2. If AMD could regularly produce large dice (which is indeed the
proper plural of "die"), then I'm sure they would go back to having
large L2 caches. (They did for a while, but couldn't make enough money
off them.)
Ed Hurtley,
President & CEO
Rent-A-Geek, Inc.
Ed,
Thanks for sharing your findings. Not too many Macs
have used L3 cache, and the model nowadays is a faster path to system
memory along with a fairly large L2.
Dan
Demystifying Mac Microphones
From Derrick Pohl:
Hi,
I've just spent a frustrating couple hours trying to figure out what
kind of external microphone will work with a slot-loading 500 MHz G3
iMac and a 2002-era eMac.
I turned first to Low End Mac, and undoubtedly the desired info is
buried in the site somewhere, but seems to be in the form of passing
mentions scattered through many articles and reviews.
Apple.com is not much more useful.
One thing I found is that this is a common area of confusion and
frustration as expressed by many similar inquiries on various Mac
forums.
The upshot is that an article surveying the external microphone
compatibility situation for Macs over the past decade or so would be an
enormously useful resource that does not appear to currently exist in
the Mac website universe. Or if such does exist, it is extremely hard
to find.
Just to give you an idea of what I mean, there seems to be the
following possible external mic scenarios on Macs over the past
decade:
- PlainTalk-compatible minijacks, which power the PlainTalk mic's
built-in preamp from the minijack itself via the extra 1/8" extension
on the special PlainTalk plug that contacts an internal power
connector
- line-level mic input minijacks that can power a PlainTalk mic as
above, and can also be used with any mic provided the level is boosted
through some form of preamp
- line-level mic input minijacks that require a preamped mic to boost
the level, but which are not compatible with PlainTalk mic's (e.g. the
eMac mentioned above)
- no analog audio input at all, requiring a USB mic
- mic input minijack that will work with an unamplified mic, the same
as PC's, allowing use of any PC-compatible mic
An article that clearly indicates which of the above categories (and
any others that might exist) applies to each Mac model over the past
decade would be a blessing to all vintage Mac users trying to figure
out what kind of microphone and/or headset they can use with their
older Mac.
It would be additionally excellent if the article included some
discussion of the pros and cons of connecting a mic/headset via USB vs.
the analog sound input in models where both are possible.
For example, in my case, both the iMac and the eMac appear to
require a preamped mic to boost the level to "line-level". Though I
haven't yet priced the options, my guess is that USB mic/headsets would
end up being cheaper than preamp device + unamplified mic/headsets, or
in the case of the iMac, a PlainTalk mic. But what if there are
non-monetary considerations that would strongly favour one solution
over the other, such as audio quality or technical glitches or other
compatibility issues?
I hope my example and the details I've given above help clarify the
great need for a comprehensive and concise article addressing this
vexing issue.
Thanks, and feel free to get back to me with any questions you may
have about anything I've written.
- Derrick
Derrick,
No, you didn't miss an article on Low End Mac. It's
one area we've never researched, but with the rise of voice chat
software and podcasting, I can see that it's an important area. I'll
post this in the mailbag in hopes that someone can point to such an
article or would be willing to undertake compiling this information for
publication.
Dan
Leopard Won't Install on G4 Yikes
From Sascha:
Just to let you know, I own one of the very first G4 models, the
Power Macintosh G4/350 with PCI graphics.
It happened that I found a copy of Build 5A559 on my doormate, and I
wanted to see if it installs. It doesn't.
At bootup from the DVD with pressing 'c' on the keyboard, you see
the grey Apple screen and a few seconds later the lines written: 'No
drivers found for this platform : PowerMac 2,1 '
That's about it; there is no workaround (I tried those, like
replacing OSINstall.pkg with the Tiger one and all other known tricks).
My guess is that this will happen on all PCI graphics based machines,
because it seems that only AGP chips are supported.
It's a shame to see this rock-solid machine (which runs Tiger at no
problems with memory maxed out and a Quartz Extreme PCI card in - it
does iPhoto 5, Photoshop CS, and even Poser 6 is possible) suddenly
turned into "an obsolete computer".
I hate to say it, but with this decision Apple will see lots of
boohs. Why not have they included a setup that will check for
capabilities and let the OS itself or the user decide what feature to
turn on or off?
Greetings from Germany
Sascha
Sascha,
Thanks for writing. We don't expect the Leopard
installer to work with any unsupported models, but we have heard that
drives that have had Leopard installed in a supported G4 system have
been put in some unsupported models - and Leopard runs just fine.
However, we don't yet have specifics as to what models these have been,
and it's possible that Macs without AGP graphics won't work at all.
We'll start collecting that information when the official version of
Leopard is available.
Dan
Comment Doesn't Make Sense
From Jack Beckman:
Our guess is that all Mac designed around a G4 CPU
will be able to run Leopard, the likely exception being the "Yikes!"
Power Mac G4, which essentially grafts a G4 CPU onto a motherboard
designed for the G3 processor. It seems very unlikely that the beige
Power Mac G3 will be able to run Leopard even with a G4 upgrade, but
there's a fair chance that a G4-upgraded Blue & White G3 could
work.
The above makes no sense to me. A Yikes! is a Blue and White
G3 "upgraded" at the factory, basically. Why would you guess that a
B&W with a G4 would work when a Yikes! wouldn't? I'd be more
inclined to think that the presence of the G4 is the important part -
that Leopard has G4-specific code in it that a G3 can't execute.
In any case, I won't be spending any time trying to get it on my
Yikes! - it runs just fine as a backup DNS server with Panther.
Jack
Jack,
Our guess is that if any G4-based Mac won't be able
to run Leopard, it's going to be the Yikes! Power Mac, as it's the
only G4-based Mac built around a motherboard designed for the G3. At
the same time, we believe that the Blue & White G3 with a G4
upgrade is the G3-based Mac most likely to be able to run
Leopard. I don't see where that doesn't make sense....
Dan
Finding BBEdit Lite
From Melissa Seibert :
Dear Dan-
I would love to try the older version of BBEdit Lite but cannot find
a source anywhere. Can you help?
Thanks
Melissa
Melissa,
It's not easy to find. The links at MacUpdate and
VersionTracker no longer work, but I found BBEdit Lite v6.1.2 available
for download on the System
7 Today website.
Dan
Low End Until the End...
From Michael:
Hi Dan,
Love the site and enjoy reading the articles, even the occasional
rants :) too.
I just wanted to share on my 2 cents and my choice for switching to
Apple computers. In the past I was an avid user of the fab PC
platforms. I've been playing, and occasionally seriously work on my PC
machines. I love to reuse old hardware and make old decaying systems
even better than they originally where. I love to use the term
resurrect for what I can do to a system, and I love to "squeeze"
every bit of potential out of a system and it's hardware.
However for the longest time I had felt something strangely drawing
me away from PC regime and Microsoft based products. I was never one to
be religiously infatuated with companies or their missions, hell, I
even blasphemed the Apple name and computers a few times. In my 15 yrs
of tinkering with PCs and "resurrecting" them, I have avidly used Linux
systems, modded versions of Windows systems, and even odd end operating
systems.
However this all changed approximately 2 years ago when I went into
a local Goodwill computer store. I met a salesman there named Ryan who,
after much talk about computers and the like, I found was an avid Mac
user and fan. A couple of conversations later I finally decided to dive
in and I bought an Old G3 Blue and White.
Since then I have never been the same when it came to preference. Even
though it was a B&W and was slow, I loved it, I loved it. I loved
the OS (10.1), I loved the hardware, and I loved the fact that I saw an
immediate difference when I maxed out it's memory.
It's now been 2 yrs since that system, and I now own a G4 mini and a
G4 iBook. I use every bit of them, and I love them as much as I love my
hobby, what I consider to be one of my life's passions. I read about
all the people who post about gaming and hardware specs and speeds and
what they have to say. I guess in my heart the games, hardware and
specs are only as good as the amount of love you have for the platform
you choose :)
-Michael
Michael,
I cut my computing teeth in a different era, but I was
the same way with PC hardware. Back in the day, I was a DOS geek,
squeezing out a few more percentage points of performance here, a bit
more there. And then I started really using the Macs at the computer
store where I worked. Once I got used to the differences - and they
were vast in the pre-Windows era - I came to like it more and more.
Within 6 months I sold my PC, and I've been using Macs ever since.
Yes, it's something akin to love. The Macs let me
tinker if and when I want to, but mostly they just let me get to work.
My few Windows PCs are a whole different story, always calling out for
some update or tweak.
I'm glad you found the Mac world - and Low End
Mac.
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.
