Power Mac G5 vs. Intel Mac mini
From John Muir:
Hello again Dan,
Regarding Ben Szymanski's
quandary over an interim Mac on a low budget until college, I have
doubts about the G5. My brother bought a top-end Power Mac dual 2.5 GHz new in
2004 - which he used for coding, hosting his Subversion repository
(coding), and as a DVR with EyeTV. It started behaving erratically last
autumn, and he discovered that its liquid cooling had sprung a leak
. . . only visible once he'd painstakingly removed the
non-user-serviceable processor block. Apparently the liquid cooled G5s
have a mixed reliability record, according to Hard Mac. He'd been keeping an
occasional eye out for leaks in the bottom of his machine's case, but
alas this leak was too small to be obvious until the machine
failed.
It's possible the processors are still fine: the machine's safety
system kept powering it down when it sensed something was wrong. But
the cost to repair the Power Mac was substantially above that of buying
a lower end replacement: plus he needed his production machine back in
action right away.
So he bought a new 2 GHz
Intel Mac mini. It's quieter than the Power Mac, comparable at most
tasks like compiling, and actually has quite an edge in H.264
encryption. For its price, it was a real steal. He upgraded the memory
to 2 GB (which seems to be adequate for its 24-7 use) and has two
NewerTech miniStacks piled
under the machine hosting his old system's hard drives. FireWire and
USB 2 handle heavy throughput nicely. In all he's pretty pleased
with the new setup, though does hope to fix the G5 eventually with
whatever scheme he can hatch, when time allows.
You get a real treat of processor power for the price with even the
lowest end Intel Mac. Power Macs tend to retain their value for a long
time secondhand, making the price difference even more noticeable. That
dual 2.5 GHz G5 was among the best G5s Apple ever made: a single
processor system can only possibly be beaten by the humble Mac mini by
an even wider margin.
The Mac mini's shortcomings are, of course, its lack of internal
expandability (though I've upgraded the CPU and RAM on mine without
much ado, certainly less than going inside an iBook!) and its graphics.
I use Photoshop on mine with no problems . . . it's certainly
much faster than the G4s I've used. But games are definitely a sore
spot, and I would recommend steering clear. I've played a few Windows
titles using Boot Camp on the first Intel mini I laid hands on, and it
was like a trip back to 2003! Although naturally none of those would
run at all on a PowerPC, only native Mac ports.
Leopard really sings on every Intel Mac. Yes, even integrated
graphics gives strong Core Image and Core Animation performance. The
processor power is unmatchable even by the highest end PowerPCs, and
you have Boot Camp and virtualisation available to you. Unless 3D
graphics really is at the core of what you do, I find it hard to
justify paying more for a slower system which can't offer all of
that.
There's a lot of irrational fear and loathing out there about the
Mac mini, but given a decent external hard drive and a bit of thought,
it's something definitely to be considered. They even make the quietest
and easiest hidden server money can buy right now, for making
themselves useful once Ben does have an awesome future-spec Mac Pro!
John Muir
John,
Thanks for bringing up Power Mac G5 reliability.
MacInTouch has a
great Reader Report on this subject covering over 3,600 computers. On
average 17% of them needed repair during the first year, and 4 of the
13 distinct models passed the 25% mark. Looking at general patterns,
among the June 2003, June 2004, and April 2005 models, the fastest
model has the highest repair rate - and the middle of the pack model
has the lowest. Of all the problems tracked, only the June 2004 2.5 GHz
and April 2005 2.7 GHz models report significant problems with coolant
leaks (in the 3-4% range). All models had lower repair rates after the
first year in use, which bodes well for the used Mac market.
In terms of raw processing power, the 1.83 GHz Core Duo Mac mini roughly
matches what the 2.7 GHz
Power Mac G5 provides - at a fraction of the cost. (The only
PowerPC Mac to outperform the 1.83 GHz Mac mini is the 2.5 GHz quad-core model,
and today's 2.4 GHz
iMacs have as much processing power as those most powerful over
PowerPC Macs.)
The Intel-based Mac mini is a real powerhouse for the
price, and the iMac is no slouch. With a built-in display, stereo
speakers, a 3.5" hard drive, and dedicated graphics (in all but two
older 17" models), they'd be the better choice for gamers.
Dan
Dan,
The machine had no problems at all until it started shutting down
late last year without warning and showing a red light deep inside on
its motherboard. That's when my brother went inside behind the
processor block - a risk he would not have taken if it were still under
warranty - to discover a small pool of leaked coolant and a corrosive
stain otherwise well out of view.
It's not to say that G5s should be avoided for reliability:
Obviously this problem wouldn't have applied to an air cooled model
like most Power Macs. But when it comes to options for repair, there
basically are none. If this were a G4, he could have bought an
aftermarket upgrade kit. No such luck for G5s though.
John
John,
I hear you. The biggest drawback to the G5 Power Macs
is that there are and will never be CPU upgrades. The whole system is
tweaked for a specific processor, and IBM has no reason to ever make
G5s faster than what Apple used. That said, G4s only go as fast as 2.0
GHz. In comparing a used G4 + CPU upgrade to a used G5, the G5 won
hands down for value. I need to continue analyzing the reliability
results. The most reliable models are the April 2005 2.3 GHz dual (11%
repair rate) and the June 2004 2.0 GHz single (17%), followed by three
other models at 19% (June 2003 1.8 GHz single, June 2004 1.8 GHz dual,
and Oct. 2004 1.8 GHz single). We'll add reliability ratings to our
profiles when I'm comfortable with my analysis.
Dan
Sonnet HARMONi G3 Tiger Compatibility
From John Klos:
Hi, Dan,
I just thought I'd let you and your readers know about compatibility
between OS X 10.4.x and the Sonnet HARMONi G3 accelerator and FireWire
board for first generation iMacs.
I
have an iMac tray-loading motherboard built into a Tonka
truck.
I've had the HARMONi G3 for
a while now, and hoped to use it with 10.4 when it came out. However,
there was a problem with the FireWire where the FireWire kernel
extension would take 100% of the CPU in 10.4 and hardly share, leaving
the system practically unusable. One option was to unload the kernel
extension and not use FireWire; the other was to stick with 10.3.
I've recently tried later versions of OS X 10.4, starting with OS X
Server 10.4.7, and I am pleased to see that the FireWire bus works
fine, and the system is even speedier and more responsive than with
OS X Server 10.3.9. Apparently, somewhere along the way, some 10.4
update fixed the FireWire problem.
If any of your readers have a Sonnet HARMONi G3, they might like to
know that they can run later versions of 10.4.
As a followup to a previous letter regarding 512 meg DIMMs in these
iMacs, I have tried four different kinds of 512 meg DIMMs, in both this
HARMONi and on Apple CPU cards. None of them showed up as more than 256
megs. Oh, well . . . 512 megs total will just have to do!
Thanks very much,
John Klos
John,
That's one of the most unusual Mac mods I've ever
seen. :-)
Thanks for the update on the Sonnet HARMONi upgrade.
Too bad Sonnet never made a G4 version of that very useful upgrade.
Dan
OCR Software for Macs: Acrobat Pro
From Alec Morgan:
Hi Dan,
Regular reader here from New Zealand, where you say? Well look on
your map, bottom of the South Pacific near Australia.
Low End Mac has been of immense help over the years to this Mac
user. Now, a lot of people overlook the OCR feature that is built into
Adobe's Acrobat professional 7.0. and later. I am not sure if the
feature is present in earlier versions. You just choose "create .pdf
file from scanner" or under the document menu "recognise text using
OCR" for an open existing .pdf file. PDFs can be exported or 'printed'
from many applications. Acrobats OCR is not as full featured as
OmniPage, (which has the ability to divide pages up into sectors etc.)
but is very accurate for standard office documents I have found. This
may not appear to be a low-end solution, but you can buy academic
versions of Acrobat.
One more thing . . . those who think their G3 iMacs PAV
board or screen is dead might like to try pushing (just once for around
10 seconds) the reset PMU button. Yes, these have a physical button, a
little tricky to find through the back hatch, but it has restored
several for me recently.
Best Regards
Alec
Alec,
Thanks for the tips. I've never used the pro version
of Acrobat, but I'm glad you're finding it to work decently for OCR.
I'll also post your tip with our G3 iMac profiles.
Dan
Missing Video Thumbnails
From Trevor Howard:
Hello,
Figured I'd ask here, since this is the only place I can think of to
get my question answered
Well I finally managed to get my hands on one of the nice new
17" MacBook
Pros (2.5, 1680x1050 screen) and began the process of migrating
files to it, however once I was done I found that suddenly I've lost my
video thumbnails on a bunch of my videos within the Finder!
First thing I did was ensure that the thumbnail preview was
on, and it was, so next up I set about checking codecs. So I
loaded on all my old codec packs as well as a few new ones, and I got
some thumbnails back . . . but not all.
The files play fine in QuickTime; Quick Look, however, tends to take
a bit to spool up, they will eventually play . . . but
it does take quite a while....
It's quite an odd problem actually, since there seems to be little
rhyme or reason for the discrimination . . . a bunch of them
that had thumbnails just now don't, and multiple restarts and fiddling
doesn't seem to be helping. I mean, even before on the G5 things were a
tidge spotty when it came to thumbnails, but never to the extent of
having them on only a few files!
Even then usually they'd generate if I renamed the file or shuffled
it to another drive . . . this time, no luck. I mean this
isn't a huge issue, and besides that, the MBP has been stupendous, it
just irks me that my brand new in every way superior to my G5 (okay
maybe not every way) MBP cant generate previews for files my G5
can!
Thanks to anyone who might be able to help
-Trevor H
Trevor,
We're beyond my expertise here, so I'll have to post
this to the Mailbag in hopes someone from readerland can help out.
Are all of the problem videos of the same file type?
Were they possible created using the same program? Just grasping at
straws....
Dan
Geoff Phillips' G4/450 Dual Processor Auction
From Dan Palka of Info-Mac
and System 7 Today:
I was looking at the photograph
linked by Geoff Phillips in the recent
mailbag, and I dare say I think that is a ZIF-socketed G4 Yikes! - which is not
compatible with the standard G4 upgrades, and also doesn't feature AGP,
so is limited to some rather lousy video under Mac OS X.
It also would make it single processor.
Dan Palka
Dan,
Thanks for writing. I can't say that I've ever handled
a Yikes, but it that's what Geoff is getting, he's been seriously
misled in the auction listing, as the Yikes Power Macs only came in 350
MHz and 400 MHz versions.
I've compared that photo with layout diagrams for the
Yikes
and Sawtooth
models on Mac Gurus, and you're right - it matches the Yikes mobo. I
also tracked down
an eBay auction of a Mystic/Gigabit Ethernet mobo, and it's
definitely not the one in the photo Geoff linked to.
I'll send this info to him.
Dan
UPDATE: Geoff emailed to tell me that the seller is
using the same "stock" photo with all of his Power Mac G4 auctions,
regardless of which model it is. That's only asking for
confusion....
Internet Access via Digital Phone?
From Michael Askey:
Dan
Hi, I just discovered your site, and I thought you might be able to
answer my question.
I have a Mac PowerBook G3
with the bronze keyboard. I don't have dialup Internet service,
and I do have digital phone. Is there anyway I can get Internet on my
laptop with WiFi or cable?
Thanks.
Michael Askey
Michael,
The Lombard PowerBook gives you a multitude of
possibilities. If you have cable TV, you can probably get cable
Internet through your cable provider. That will connect to the
PowerBook's ethernet port, so you won't need to add anything to the
notebook.
Likewise, if you have a regular phone line, you can
probably get DSL, which is slower than cable but a lot faster than
dialup. Availability depends on your local carrier and whether your
location is close enough to the phone company's nearest hub. This would
also connect via ethernet.
In some areas, you may be able to sign up to use WiFi
(802.11) or WiMax
(802.16) networking. WiFi cards, especially 802.11g ones, are pretty
reasonable, but you have to be within 300' of a wireless hub. WiMax
hardware is a lot more expensive, although personal WiMax service seems
to be competitively priced, and a local
carrier offers service up to 4 miles from its access points.
Finally, some mobile phone carriers do have data
plans, and some mobile phones can be connected to your PowerBook using
a USB data cable or Bluetooth. Throughput tends to be on the slow side,
but still about 10x dialup. Costs tend to be on the high side compared
with other options, but if you only use it a bit, it might be a
reasonable choice.
There are way to many variables for us to offer any
advice, but you may have a lot of options (much of this depends on
where you live).
Dan
What if Apple Offered Intel and PowerPC Macs?
From Seth Windoms:
Since my last article about a used Apple notebook, I went and got a
Intel Mac mini, and I have to say I miss Classic. So I thought back to
when I bought my PC: Most PC companies offer two processor choices, AMD
and Intel. So why can't Apple offer us Intel and PowerPC processors. I
know PowerPC is slower or could be, but you could put in the base of
each product. So then people who don't need to run Windows can just use
the cheaper and bit slower, and more efficient PowerPC.
Seth,
Problem is, the PowerPC isn't more efficient, runs
hotter than Intel, and lags in clock speed. Further, the hardware
architecture of PowerPC and Core 2 computers is very different, so it
wouldn't be as simple as plugging a PowerPC chip into an Intel
motherboard. Apple would have to maintain a parallel line of
motherboards.
Last summer Primate
Labs reported Geekbench results for a wide range of Macs running
Tiger, from the G3 era through Core 2 and Xeon CPUs. The most powerful
PowerPC Mac, the Power Mac G5 Quad, had a Geekbench score of 3298. The
2.66 GHz 4-core Mac Pro, the most comparable model in terms of CPU
speed, benchmarks at 5018 - over 50% higher with a CPU that clocks just
6.5% faster. And it doesn't require the sophisticated cooling system
that the G5 needed.
If you want or need the Classic Mac OS, you have two
options: Use the SheepShaver emulator on an Intel Mac or use a PowerPC
Mac. There are plenty of them on the used market, and most Classic apps
don't require monstrous horsepower, so you have a lot of options on the
used market.
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.
