[POLL] Desktop G3 VS Mini Tower. Which do you prefer?
- Thread starter Johnnya101
- Start date
I'd certainly think so. My AiO has the 733MHz G4 and while it feels faster than the 233MHz G3 it replaced, it's not a knock-your-socks off type speed difference (though it certainly is noticeable). I'm just running 9.2.2 though and have yet to max the RAM. For what I'm using the machine for, anything more than 320MB would probably be overkill. Of course, that's not to say that I wouldn't max it out someday just for the heck of it.
Well 512MB for OSX 10.2 is pretty good, but people try running 10.4/10.5 on that RAM it gets slow (when you actually start opening apps). You also have the unsupported video card problems.
A 1Ghz G4 under OS 9 would be dreamlike.
You have to downclock B&Ws to to 66mhz for the Sonnet 1ghz, and the RAM isn't as much of a hindrance as you might think.
I didn't build this computer, but it has a fair few "go fast" parts including a 15K drive and a Radeon 9200. I love the amount of legacy support it has also vs. a B&W.
If I though there was a real advantage, I'd put the processor in a B&W. As it is, though, the downsides outweigh the the only real advantage(an extra 256mb of RAM).
As other have suggested, the machine is quite fast in OS 9, and is pleasantly useable in Tiger. I haven't gotten around to using it in Leopard, but I've run systems with lower specs.
Last edited by a moderator:
10.4.11 performs plenty well on 768mb of ram. It actually does alright on just 512mb as well, depending on the apps you are running.
Agreed. More RAM is always better, but I've never had issues running it on computers like Lombards or iBooks with RAM limits in that ballpark.
Don't talk about Tiger running slow until you've run it on a 604e with a few hundred MB of RAM.
Don't talk about Tiger running slow until you've run it on a 604e with a few hundred MB of RAM.
I've ran 10.2.8 on a PowerBook 3400c with 144mb RAM and a 240mhz 603e... Not quite Tiger, but does that count to talk to you about slow OS X performance? 
I have no doubt it's slow.
A friend of mine just put Tiger on a Kanga the other day with 96mb of RAM. I think Geekbench took about 3 hours to run and returned a score of 95. Perhaps he'll post here about it.
The same friend has been trying to get me to run Tiger on a 603e. I don't have a 128mb card for my 3400c so it's out(I think you need 96mb as an absolute bare minimum to load the desktop), and the most likely candidate is my 6500. It tops at 128mb. I had attempted it at one point but the HDD with the "special" 60x series Tiger kernel(work of the same friend) decided to quit working. I had cables hanging out the side of the 6500 case since I had to use an ATA card and there's no real way to get more drives inside the case. I'll try that again one of these days.
A friend of mine just put Tiger on a Kanga the other day with 96mb of RAM. I think Geekbench took about 3 hours to run and returned a score of 95. Perhaps he'll post here about it.
The same friend has been trying to get me to run Tiger on a 603e. I don't have a 128mb card for my 3400c so it's out(I think you need 96mb as an absolute bare minimum to load the desktop), and the most likely candidate is my 6500. It tops at 128mb. I had attempted it at one point but the HDD with the "special" 60x series Tiger kernel(work of the same friend) decided to quit working. I had cables hanging out the side of the 6500 case since I had to use an ATA card and there's no real way to get more drives inside the case. I'll try that again one of these days.
https://browser.geekbench.com/geekbench2/2622693 heres my Kanga score as mentioned above 
the 95 was achieved by an 8600/250 (604ev) running tiger that i setup for another friend of mine which you can see here https://browser.geekbench.com/geekbench2/2594131
but yeah I like making OS X (and OSs in general) run on grossly inappropriate hardware as mentioned above I was able to compile a special kernel for 10.4.11 that enabled 10.4.11 to run on 604/603 CPUs.
(with the help of Bunn and others since im laking in hardware) I have been able to test it on 604 604e and 604ev CPUs but sadly not on any 603s due to the lack of hardware and other things stated above.
I do have a PowerBook 3400c but as like Bunn above i dont have enough ram to boot tiger on it (it only has a 16MB card plus the 16MB onboard, 32MB is enough to boot OS X sever 1.2v3 tho). I did try the 64MB RAM card from my kanga in it (even if that did work properly 80MB is not enough to boot Tiger but i could of booted Jag) and strangely the Kanga card only showed up as a 32MB card in the 3400c. id love to find a 128MB card for the 3400c (and the kanga for that matter)
the 95 was achieved by an 8600/250 (604ev) running tiger that i setup for another friend of mine which you can see here https://browser.geekbench.com/geekbench2/2594131but yeah I like making OS X (and OSs in general) run on grossly inappropriate hardware
as mentioned above I was able to compile a special kernel for 10.4.11 that enabled 10.4.11 to run on 604/603 CPUs.(with the help of Bunn and others since im laking in hardware) I have been able to test it on 604 604e and 604ev CPUs but sadly not on any 603s due to the lack of hardware and other things stated above.
I do have a PowerBook 3400c but as like Bunn above i dont have enough ram to boot tiger on it (it only has a 16MB card plus the 16MB onboard, 32MB is enough to boot OS X sever 1.2v3 tho). I did try the 64MB RAM card from my kanga in it (even if that did work properly 80MB is not enough to boot Tiger but i could of booted Jag) and strangely the Kanga card only showed up as a 32MB card in the 3400c. id love to find a 128MB card for the 3400c (and the kanga for that matter)
Last edited by a moderator:
Thinking super briefly about cooling G3 systems, particularly those with upgrades. What is the TDP on those upgrades?
Has anybody been able to determine what exactly airflow in the beige G3s is like? Has a smoke test been done or airflow been measured like that?
As has been mentioned before, the early G3s have like a 10W TDP and later ones reduce that to about 6W. Both of these are within the range that passive cooling is all that's generally needing.
I don't know if there's an exhaustive list of Mac CPU/component TDPs out there anywhere, but it would be super interesting to see. I doubt the Outrigger enclosure should have any problems with G4s, given that they run fine with 604s and 604es in them.
Has anybody been able to determine what exactly airflow in the beige G3s is like? Has a smoke test been done or airflow been measured like that?
As has been mentioned before, the early G3s have like a 10W TDP and later ones reduce that to about 6W. Both of these are within the range that passive cooling is all that's generally needing.
I don't know if there's an exhaustive list of Mac CPU/component TDPs out there anywhere, but it would be super interesting to see. I doubt the Outrigger enclosure should have any problems with G4s, given that they run fine with 604s and 604es in them.
Thanks for adding the AIO! I wasnt able too...
G3 desktops and AIOs never really caught my eye. G3 towers are probably my favorite Mac, they are damn near perfect in every way for the era they were built in... certain rev ROM limitations and the lack of 10/100 onboard ethernet are really the only factors where they are lacking.
The Kanga has a ceiling of 160mb RAM, right? I'd love to take one of those, maxed out beside a top of the line 240mhz 3400c maxed out as well and put them through their paces on OS X. The Kanga is only 10mhz faster, but I have a feeling it would be significantly more responsive in an equal ram scenario to the 3400c.https://browser.geekbench.com/geekbench2/2622693 heres my Kanga score as mentioned above
RAM math makes it impossible to do a direct head-to-head comparison since the 3400c has 16mb on board and the Kanga has 32mb. That gives a max of 144mb for the 3400c and 160mb for the Kanga.
To be fair, my Kanga is maxed at 160mb and my(working) 3400c has 48mb. Even so, the Kanga feels more responsive to me on 8.6 than the 3400c does on 8.1. Apple claimed at the time it was "twice as fast" and I'm sure that was based on some sort of benchmark.
From my own experience, ~250mhz G3s seem to outperform 200mhz 604s in the same system(i.e. installing a G3 card in a 604 system). Given that difference, I'd expect a 250mhz G3 to be quite a bit faster than a 240mhz 603.
I can also pretty safely say that my 250mhz 6500(603e-based) is a real dog under OS 9.2.2 while even a 233mhz beige will handle 9.2.2 with ease. Of course, I've also found OS 9 to be somewhat RAM-hungry and the 6500 tops at 128mb.
To be fair, my Kanga is maxed at 160mb and my(working) 3400c has 48mb. Even so, the Kanga feels more responsive to me on 8.6 than the 3400c does on 8.1. Apple claimed at the time it was "twice as fast" and I'm sure that was based on some sort of benchmark.
From my own experience, ~250mhz G3s seem to outperform 200mhz 604s in the same system(i.e. installing a G3 card in a 604 system). Given that difference, I'd expect a 250mhz G3 to be quite a bit faster than a 240mhz 603.
I can also pretty safely say that my 250mhz 6500(603e-based) is a real dog under OS 9.2.2 while even a 233mhz beige will handle 9.2.2 with ease. Of course, I've also found OS 9 to be somewhat RAM-hungry and the 6500 tops at 128mb.
Good to know
Similar threads
