iMac G3 opinion

[AvalancheSJ]

I'm looking into buying an iMac G3 (Slot loaded CD/DvD) w/ 500MHz, 256MB (up to 1GB on this model i believe) and Mac OS X 10.4 (tiger i believe) installed. At my work we use Mac Mini's with the bare min to run 10.5 (Leopard) and they are kinda slow when ur trying to do anything other than internet and email. Is the G3 a good model to buy for $70 for a Mac n00b such as myself? i plan on maxing out the memory w/ 2x512MB and just scraping the 256MB in there. and if so what is the memory cost for a mac? is it proprietary? or can u slap any non-ecc SDRAM in there and have it work?

 

[MacMan]

For most "normal" modern computing tasks, (web browsing, music, email etc), the 500MHz era G3 iMacs are more than up to the job and will motor along nicely with Tiger and a decent amount of RAM. $70 (c. £35) is a pretty average price for one of these at the moment so if it's in good condition then it'll be a pretty good deal.

As far as I can remember, these iMacs use PC100 SDRAM and perhaps also PC133. Not all PC100/133 modules will work however, so it would be best to check for compatibility before buying. In the UK the normal price for a Mac-compatible PC100 DIMM is around the £20 mark but this will likely be different in the States.

 

[Rodus]

It's not really worth it, for around the same amount you should be able to get a low end G4 on ebay: £35 G4. Much more expandable and all you need is a cheapo monitor to go with it, they are virtually giving away 17" crt's these days.

The G4 blows the G3 out of the water when it comes to running OS X.

 

[AvalancheSJ]

well i was looking on eBay and craigslist and both are kinda pricey for a g4 iMac, Mac Mini, and PowerMac, about $90 (£45ish) + shipping about $25 and up. and (with my PC knowledge in mind this might be wrong or right) they have about the same specs for that price range sometimes less 450MHz 256MB RAM, etc. is the extra FSB speed really wroth it? i just need it cause we use mac's at my work and i wanna study at home using the OS so i can help the people who use our products with a mac effectively. + having cross platform is never a bad thing. I'm damn handy w/ a PC's hardware and software but Mac is a huge switch for me. the most i ever use a mac for is my finances on my LC III that just went belly up lol.

 

[Bunsen]

That iMac is a good performer, and yet I would try for a lower price on it if possible. If you're not taken by the idea of a tower and you just want a convenient little workstation, go for it.

Go to lowendmac.com and click through the Mac profiles link in their top navigation bar. You'll find a write up and full specs on any machines you might consider.

If you are comparing an iMac and a tower, apart from the FSB and the expandability, consider a few other things:

* If the CRT fails, and they sometimes do, you'll end up having to plug in another monitor anyway. If the analog board fails, you end up with a paperweight or a hack project.

* The G3 in the iMac usually has a smaller cache than those in the towers. I would knock roughly 50 to 100MHz off the performance comparison for this reason. In other words (and this is very approximate) I would compare the value of a 500MHz iMac to about a 400-450 MHz G3 tower.

* G4 CPUs run OS X much better than a same-speed G3. The GUI really speeds up from the Altivec graphics instructions in the G4.

* The CPU in the iMac is not removable/upgradeable. The ones in the towers are.

* Same goes for video. All the towers can take faster and better video cards, which again will help with speeding up the GUI.

All said though, it's a personal choice, and if the iMac is what works best for you, do it.

And if your work is running your Mac Minis on the "bare min" required for Leopard - and I assume you mean minimum RAM - for liberty's sake, get them to double it, at least. The more the merrier. They're wasting money paying you to wait while it spins the beachball.

One more thing? We tend to speak English here, not lolspeek.

 

[Temetka]

Say what?

I distinctly recall MacAddict doing an article on various machine upgrades.

They upgraded on and painted it to look like a marshall amp.

 

[Mike Richardson]

Say what?
I distinctly recall MacAddict doing an article on various machine upgrades.

They upgraded on and painted it to look like a marshall amp.

That was a tray loader, and I think they used that one upgrade that was only available for tray loaders.

 

[Rodus]

AvalancheSJ, it's still worth shopping around for a cheap G4 as you should be able to find one in your price bracket if you hunt. The FSB does make a fair bit of difference and the CPU is in a different league. Don't forget the slot loading iMac's are unupgradeable and really struggle with stuff like flash. The tray loaders were cpu upgradeable to a G4 but they had rubbish graphics Rage II/Pro. The G3 iMac, unless it is for the most basic of stuff is a bit long in the tooth for many things now.

 

[Temetka]

Say what?
I distinctly recall MacAddict doing an article on various machine upgrades.

They upgraded on and painted it to look like a marshall amp.

That was a tray loader, and I think they used that one upgrade that was only available for tray loaders.

The point is that there are CPU upgrades available.

http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en-us&q=imac+g3+cpu+upgrade&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

 

[equill]

My recent switch from three 500MHz/1GB iMacs running Jaguar, Panther and Tiger to a single G4 DA (quickly upgraded from 466 to 533 to 733MHz) was to be able to drive a 20-in ADC display. The DA boots Jaguar and Tiger, and not only has it taken over visually from what are now evidently so-so CRT 15-in displays, but also can it cope with 2 x 80GB and 1 x 160GB HDDs (through an Acard ATA-133).

The iMacs stay warm on their umbilical cords, since there is much life in them yet because their convective cooling was always (during 8 to 5 years of always-on use) assisted by the elevation of their rear 'feet' on 18mm-thick timber. Sadly, I could not sell all three for as much as the DA plus drives plus CPU plus display plus card has cost, but both sound- and text-editing are orders of magnitude more convenient and pleasurable, not so much for speed as for visual precision and responsiveness.

de

 

[4seasonphoto]

If you really just want to own a G3 iMac, and particularly if it's one of the more collectable color variations, like "Flower Power" or "Blue Dalmation", sure, go ahead. Try not to ship a slot-loader as the internal plastics turn brittle with age, and you will likely receive a parcel of shards if you do.

But as a tool, and for more common color variants, no, $70 is not a great price these days. Reliability is an issue with the slot loaders (I had quite a few power supplies, and even a couple of CRTs fail on me), plastics have gone brittle, and if you have to buy it new, PC100 SODIMMs are no longer so cheap because they are obsolete (DDR2 is probably cheapest right now)

 

[Scott Baret]

I'd stick with Panther on a G3 for optimal performance. Tiger is more compatible but more memory and processor intensive. I'd only use it if you had a program that required it.

 

[equill]

I was happy with Panther on a CRT iMac for quite a time after the appearance of Tiger, but the change to Tiger was prompted by its greater Web security. Tiger's 'stealth mode' and firewall logging, as well as the ability to close off even unwanted UDP traffic give just that extra degree of protection. Just to sit and watch the firewall log incrementing while there is no active connection to any site is quite a sobering activity.

At 500MHz and at least 768MB of RAM there is little to choose between Panther and Tiger for speed and reliability, but Tiger's apps are just that little more mature, ignoring the gew-gaws.

de