PDA

View Full Version : iMac G3 350 no firewire? But 168pin ram?




California
Nov 30, 2006, 01:02 PM
Got a cheap iMac G3 350 for my nieces - newish in the original box!

I was amazed that tho it is a slot load rather than the earlier, slightly larger tray loaders, it did not have firewire!

So I had to pull the hard drive and stick in a formatted Panther 40 gig drive to get Panther on it. Lots of weird 9.1 firmware messages that I could not figure out on the original 7 gig drive.

I stuck in 768 of 168pin PC133 ram in it and it still runs beautifully.

I was just amazed that this thing is set up like the firewire iMacs but no slots.
If I had more time and inclination, I would have plopped a dvd drive in it.

Anyway, this thing runs great. Just strange that they would leave firewire off of it -- I wonder if it has the motherboard hookups for Firewire but no slots?



SpankyPenzaanz
Nov 30, 2006, 06:49 PM
have you put the serial number into apple's support site to get the skinny on everylittle thing about it?

Maxwell Smart
Nov 30, 2006, 06:55 PM
The thing is, that apple released the 350 as the "low end" of the new tray loaders and as such omitted the firewire, though as you can tell, there is a blank spot where they should be :P

bousozoku
Nov 30, 2006, 07:07 PM
It was one of the first slot loaders. I have one here that was my dad's. $799 in 2000. I believe that the cheapest one with FireWire was $999.

Apple didn't use the SO-DIMMs until the G4 iMacs thankfully. However, I'm surprised that it recognises more than 512 MB since that was claimed as the limit way back when.

The ATI Rage 128 graphics hardware was decently strong for the machine but the 6 MB of video RAM limited the textures compared to the 16 MB card that was included in the blue and white PowerMac G3s.

I think the worst thing about the G3 iMacs is what makes it best--no fan. You have to be careful that it has plenty of ventilation since it doesn't drive the heat out with a fan.

4JNA
Nov 30, 2006, 07:57 PM
...However, I'm surprised that it recognises more than 512 MB since that was claimed as the limit way back when.

didn't know that! have a grape 400 slot load that has 1gb (512 x 2) and a 60gb 7200 rpm drive that i have been using for years. still a very usable everyday machine with 10.3 running. wonder how many windows 95 user (same time frame) can claim that....;)

Eidorian
Nov 30, 2006, 08:01 PM
http://www.lowendmac.com/imacs/blue.shtml

bousozoku
Nov 30, 2006, 08:26 PM
didn't know that! have a grape 400 slot load that has 1gb (512 x 2) and a 60gb 7200 rpm drive that i have been using for years. still a very usable everyday machine with 10.3 running. wonder how many windows 95 user (same time frame) can claim that....;)

Of course, if you don't upgrade any applications, Win95 should run everything as well (or poorly) as it did originally.

My dad's machine had both Mac OS 9 and Mac OS X version 10.3.x on it but my parents wouldn't upgrade any software and the thing was pretty bad when the Classic environment was running, so it was practically Mac OS 9 only. I may get it running again since I always liked that shape and colour.

CanadaRAM
Nov 30, 2006, 09:32 PM
Apple didn't use the SO-DIMMs until the G4 iMacs thankfully.

err, not quite -- the iMac G3 Tray Load machines all used SO-DIMMs.

California
Nov 30, 2006, 09:46 PM
It is a slot loader, just to clarify.

Thought it was kind of weird that it has the blank space in the ports area where firewire should go, but doesn't. It is new/old machines like this that I am tempted to upgrade to a G4. It was used for a few months and then stored in its box until now. Interesting to see it run OSX and a 7200rpm hd with 768 of ram. I think it has 8mb of vram, too, but will doublecheck.

4JNA
Nov 30, 2006, 09:57 PM
Of course, if you don't upgrade any applications, Win95 should run everything as well (or poorly) as it did originally.

yes, that's about what i meant. also, the poor old grape coming all the way from way back then, using os 8/9 and making it up to 10.3 (actually runs 10.4 ok, but 10.3 is faster) and still being a usable machine. not so much with the HP/dell/etc pII@233, 32mb, 6.4gb 'big foot' hard drive crowd... tough to load much of anything current :eek: guess i could linux with no x, but the command line makes my grandma cry.

still have one customer using windows 3.1 on a 486/66 for genealogy and historical documents and such. really fun to go work on, unless you need to reboot... and again... and again... helps me keep the dos and autoexec.bat and config.sys skills sharp. never know when that kinda thing may come in handy!

dpaanlka
Nov 30, 2006, 10:00 PM
It was one of the first slot loaders.

No, the Slot loaders came out in the summer of 1999. Your iMac came out in the summer of 2000.

Apple didn't use the SO-DIMMs until the G4 iMacs thankfully. However, I'm surprised that it recognises more than 512 MB since that was claimed as the limit way back when.

The ATI Rage 128 graphics hardware was decently strong for the machine but the 6 MB of video RAM limited the textures compared to the 16 MB card that was included in the blue and white PowerMac G3s.

That OP's system in question has 16 MB of video RAM, and an actually more powerful edition than the Blue & White. Where are you getting your info from?

I think the worst thing about the G3 iMacs is what makes it best--no fan. You have to be careful that it has plenty of ventilation since it doesn't drive the heat out with a fan.

I've never had any convection cooled iMac overheat.

wonder how many windows 95 user (same time frame) can claim that....;)

It's more like Windows ME. Windows 95 would be more in like with Mac OS 7.

Thought it was kind of weird that it has the blank space in the ports area where firewire should go, but doesn't.

It's quite simple: It's based on the exact same motherboard as the others, but lacks FireWire (and AirPort slot) and came at a lower price tag.

Interesting to see it run OSX and a 7200rpm hd with 768 of ram. I think it has 16mb of vram, too, but will doublecheck.

Why would that be hard to believe at all? Drives as fast as that existed years before the iMac 350 came out.

yes, that's about what i meant. also, the poor old grape coming all the way from way back then, using os 8/9 and making it up to 10.3 (actually runs 10.4 ok, but 10.3 is faster) and still being a usable machine.

Well minimum requirements usually mean it is the minimum requirement to be useable. Also that system shipped well into OS 9 - it's not OS 8 old.

strider42
Nov 30, 2006, 10:05 PM
However, I'm surprised that it recognises more than 512 MB since that was claimed as the limit way back when.


All slot loading iMacs can take up to 1 gig of ram with no problem. Apple posts its specs with what it has available to test with at the time. They don't go back and update those specs. Apple says the max on my 233 mhz tray loader is 128 megs of ram, but the actual limit is 512. Don't worry about apple specs, they are very out of date.

California
Nov 30, 2006, 11:12 PM
All slot loading iMacs can take up to 1 gig of ram with no problem. Apple posts its specs with what it has available to test with at the time. They don't go back and update those specs. Apple says the max on my 233 mhz tray loader is 128 megs of ram, but the actual limit is 512. Don't worry about apple specs, they are very out of date.

I think bousoukou thought I had a tray loading machine. BTW, some tray loading iMacs can take 1 gig of ram, IF you feel like getting the required and expensive laptop ram for an ancient iMac.