Low end intel vs ppc

About a week ago, i brought my first Apple notebook. It's one of the latest 12" PowerBooks, with 1.5GHz G4 (end of the year 2005, shows by coconut id's). It's US$70 in Hungary, where every mac overpriced a bit. I need it just for fun, because i always wan't this machine, but i never had it. .

Installed a brand new PATA SSD (Transcend) for another $70, and a new aftermarket battery for $15. With SSD, it's a very usable machine (except for web browsing, but i'm a sysadmin, and i do all of my work in terminal via SSH). I have an another G4, an MDD, i use this when i make a trip to my parents. My parents use my older Intel iMac (Early 2006, 20") (CPU upgraded to C2D, Firmware upgraded to Late 2006, and RAM upgraded to 4GB) running with Mountain Lion.

My primary computer is a iMac 27" (Mid 2011), with i7. Upgraded with secondary SSD and a DIY fusion drive, and i need to replace the wifi/bt adapter to make compatible with yosemite's handoff/airdrop.

I know, that i spend $155 to this G4, but all of this PPC machines, make enough fun to me and some challenge to keep this ancient hardware in live. So, it's only passion, nothing more, it's passion. And when the time going on, i am sure that, noone use G4 when i'm on a train, and i never see anyone with another portable G4.

My 1.6 C2D late 2008 MacBook Air came. I compared it side-by-side with my 12" PowerBook G4 1.5 and I am astonished at the differences. It's much faster and more responsive when web browsing. The display quality is much, much better. Obviously being an Intel it can run newer software and newer OS versions (this model is even supported by Yosemite).

After using such a machine I can imagine it would be hard for anyone to go back to a 12" PowerBook, although I will admit the PowerBook does have the better keyboard.

Hrududu said:

It has been about 5 years since I would recommend buying a PowerPC to "use" every day. Intel based Macs have been very cheap since 2009/10 and were already a better value for the money.

Buying a PowerPC system now is all about being part of the collection. Buying something like an iMac G4 or a PowerMac G4 is done more by people who just haven't had one in the collection yet/buying a system they always wanted, or just fancy the design. Aside form that it could be specific hardware or software that only runs on a PPC. Anyone else who spends the money on a G5 or older system is misinformed or made a mistake.

Click to expand...

Since I do all of my work and thus earn a living on my iMac and PowerBook G4s, I disagree with your post. Last year I got the PowerBook so I could essentially take my iMac G4s (that I've had since 2003) workflow into the world of portability. It wasn't a mistake in my mind, in fact, I feel it has increased my productivity because I'm spending less time working out new/different software than I would if I had just bought any old craptop and more time actually doing some work.

I wasn't misinformed. It certainly wasn't a mistake.

roadbloc said:

Since I do all of my work and thus earn a living on my iMac and PowerBook G4s, I disagree with your post. Last year I got the PowerBook so I could essentially take my iMac G4s (that I've had since 2003) workflow into the world of portability. It wasn't a mistake in my mind, in fact, I feel it has increased my productivity because I'm spending less time working out new/different software than I would if I had just bought any old craptop and more time actually doing some work.

I wasn't misinformed. It certainly wasn't a mistake.

Click to expand...

But why a G4? Why not give yourself a faster Intel Core system that is going to outperform that G4 by 5x? I get that you're accustomed to the speed and performance of the G4 (I am too, like you I still use PPC systems daily) but if you're looking to maximize productivity, I don't see why you would choose a slower computer on purpose. Lots of Intel systems will run Tiger and Leopard like your G4, just MUCH faster.

eyoungren said:

The new 17" PowerBook I just dropped $69 on beats the pants off the 17" I got in late 2009 for more than double that price. And six years later, I now have cache again.

Click to expand...

Did I read this right, you said a G4 is faster than an Intel machine? Because a Core Duo 1.6 is faster than all G5's except the Quad. Then Quad is easily beaten by a $100 Core 2 Duo. Having owned a 1.67Ghz G4 PB with 2GB RAM and 500GB HDD it was an absolute DREAM to use a Core Duo Mac Mini after that.


And to the OP's question - PPC only for fun. The G5 got me through schooling which was then retired in 2010, but it was a solid, fast machine. That would be the minimum if you must get a PPC - a dual CORE G5. Forget the dual processors with AGP.

Then there's software support - you can get Yosemite running on an 06 Mac Pro pretty easily. I did the same with Mavericks when I had an 06.


EDIT - I guess I DIDN'T read that right. Sorry about that, eyoungren.

To be fair the PB was actually great for light browsing, e-mail, and music when you could still find a PPC Spotify app (I think that's what I used, was a few years ago).

Tucom said:

Did I read this right, you said a G4 is faster than an Intel machine? Because a Core Duo 1.6 is faster than all G5's except the Quad. Then Quad is easily beaten by a $100 Core 2 Duo. Having owned a 1.67Ghz G4 PB with 2GB RAM and 500GB HDD it was an absolute DREAM to use a Core Duo Mac Mini after that. Sluggish about sums it up.

Sorry, I just really don't get what kind of thought process people have when they say a PPC is faster than Intel.

It's great that you got a machine that you enjoy though. I don't mean any disrespect or attack. Just saying.

Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure he's comparing the 17" PowerBook to an older model 17" PowerBook. I also doubt he managed to pick up a 17" MacBook Pro for $140 in 2009.

redheeler said:

I'm pretty sure he's comparing the 17" PowerBook to an older model 17" PowerBook. I also doubt he managed to pick up a 17" MacBook Pro for $140 in 2009.

Click to expand...

He mentioned the MBP 17" in his previous posts and so I thought that's what he was referring to. Totally missed the price thing - just woke up and hit reply. My bad.

Lol, my comments about people preferring PPC over Intel still stands I still love PPC, but they're just not practical these days

I misread. Edited. Thanks.

Tucom said:

He mentioned the MBP 17" in his previous posts and so I thought that's what he was referring to. Totally missed the price thing - just woke up and hit reply. My bad.

Lol, my comments about people preferring PPC over Intel still stands I still love PPC, but they're just not practical these days

I misread. Edited. Thanks.

Click to expand...

I have a 1.6ghz CoreDuo Mini that I've had for a few days and admittedly haven't played around with it a huge amount(I've had bigger fish to fry lately). It's running Snow Leopard-I have it set to dual boot SL Client and SL Server.

With that said, my Dual Core G5(2.0) overall feels more responsive and useable. It's not a huge difference, but I can tell it.

I'd also say that just for day-to-day tasks, a last generation(1.67ghz) Powerbook is at least as useable and probably feels about as fast as the Mini. It's been a little while since I really stressed out a Powerbook and haven't done so yet on the Mini, but at least for web browsing(flash content excepted) I don't see much difference.

The Mini does kick butt when it comes to things like Flash content and watching Youtube videos, but I suspect a lot of that has to do with more up-to-date software being available.

My G5 does have a RAM advantage(10gb vs. 2gb). I haven't researched the graphics in the Mini, but suspect that the low-end Radeon 6600 w/128mb of VRAM is better than the Intel GMA 950 GPU in the Mini. Without benchmarking(I'll do it this weekend if I have time) it wouldn't surprise me if the Radeon 9700 in the last couple generation of Powerbooks is at least equal.

Throw a C2D Mac into the mix and all bets are off-I don't think any PPC stands a chance except possible for software specifically written to fully utilize a G5 processor.

I'll also add the qualifier that when I have time, I'm sticking an SSD in the Mini. I have a spare older OCZ 60gb lying around that I think will work well in it. I suspect that this will perk it up a fair bit. I just don't have time now, and looking at iFixit it's pretty major surgery-nothing I don't think I can, but still plenty of work. I have an ATAPI-SATA Optibay designed for a Powerbook waiting around to be used that I'm going to try and see if it will work, and if it does I may put the original hard drive in that.

And, along those same lines, both my A1138 and A1139 Powerbook have SSDs. This perked them up nicely, although the drives are still bottlenecked by the ATA/100 bus(which it will effectively saturate under the right conditions-something I've not seen a 2.5" platter drive capable of doing). The SATA I bus in the Mini should see more benefit from an SSD.

Hrududu said:

But why a G4? Why not give yourself a faster Intel Core system that is going to outperform that G4 by 5x? I get that you're accustomed to the speed and performance of the G4 (I am too, like you I still use PPC systems daily) but if you're looking to maximize productivity, I don't see why you would choose a slower computer on purpose. Lots of Intel systems will run Tiger and Leopard like your G4, just MUCH faster.

Click to expand...

For what I do (I write books for a living), a G4 is fast enough. I personally think RISC processors are better anyway. The Intel Macs have always been kinda 'meh' to me.

bunnspecial said:

The Mini does kick butt when it comes to things like Flash content and watching Youtube videos, but I suspect a lot of that has to do with more up-to-date software being available.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately that's the reality. A lot of these computers could probably handle the internet (Flash, Java) if their software was up to date. It's too bad PPC has been left in the dark. The G5's especially had so much potential.

roadbloc said:

For what I do (I write books for a living), a G4 is fast enough. I personally think RISC processors are better anyway. The Intel Macs have always been kinda 'meh' to me.

Click to expand...

RISC processors are theoretically better, but with little current development in RISC architectures and a lot of development over the past 10 years in CISC processors(especially x86-64) I think that they generally have enough sheer horsepower to make them perform better than RISC. I'd like to have a chance to play around with a newer PowerPC Processor like a Power8, but I think you pretty much need to write your own software to really even be able to use them.

G4s are great for writing unless you're integrating a crummy word processor like MS word with other crummy software like Endnote in larger size documents. Then, even an Intel Mac can frustrate you.

bunnspecial said:

My G5 does have a RAM advantage(10gb vs. 2gb). I haven't researched the graphics in the Mini, but suspect that the low-end Radeon 6600 w/128mb of VRAM is better than the Intel GMA 950 GPU in the Mini. Without benchmarking(I'll do it this weekend if I have time) it wouldn't surprise me if the Radeon 9700 in the last couple generation of Powerbooks is at least equal.

Click to expand...

Being kind, the GMA 950 sucked even when it was new. It was missing Vertex shaders therefore didn't support hardware T&L. The Radeon 9700 was a high end card at the time and would nuke it from orbit. The GMA950 is just about fit to run Aqua, and barely scrapes Core Image support. Core Image benchmarks had the GMA 950 about 3x slower than the Intel Macs with ATi X1600s and the PowerBook DLSD with the older AGP 9700.

Intel's 2006 era integrated graphics deserved their bad reputation hence Apple sticking two fingers up at them and going to nVidia a couple of years later. Intel just about pulled their finger out by the time they changed the bus design for the i-series in late 2008 ... and refused to grant nVidia a license killing their chipset business overnight.

MagicBoy said:

Being kind, the GMA 950 sucked even when it was new. It was missing Vertex shaders therefore didn't support hardware T&L. The Radeon 9700 was a high end card at the time and would nuke it from orbit. The GMA950 is just about fit to run Aqua, and barely scrapes Core Image support. Core Image benchmarks had the GMA 950 about 3x slower than the Intel Macs with ATi X1600s and the PowerBook DLSD with the older AGP 9700.

Intel's 2006 era integrated graphics deserved their bad reputation hence Apple sticking two fingers up at them and going to nVidia a couple of years later. Intel just about pulled their finger out by the time they changed the bus design for the i-series in late 2008 ... and refused to grant nVidia a license killing their chipset business overnight.

Click to expand...

What a shame. My MacBook Air late 2008 was the first generation that switched over to the Nvidia dGPU.

Edit: Actually the iMacs were the first to switch to dGPU in late 2006.

To give things an honest chance, I'm sitting here this evening with a Quicksilver G4 hooked up to my left monitor the 2006 Mini hooked up to my right monitor.

Again, for the full specs:

Quicksilver:

Dual 1ghz PowerPC G4 7450 CPUs with 2mb L3 cache/processor
1.5gb PC-133 SDRAM
Radeon 9600XT
OS X 10.5.8

Mini:

Intel CoreDuo 1.6ghz
2gb DDR-2 PC-2 5300 RAM
Intel GMA 950
OS X 10.6.8

The WiFi antenna in the Mini can't pick up our house network reliably, while the G4, with an Airport Extreme compatible PCI WiFi card, can. For that reason, I'm using internet sharing on the G4 and have an ethernet cable running between it and the mini.

In casual web browsing, I honestly don't notice a difference. Scrolling is smooth and fluid on both machines. Pages load immediately(Firefox on the Mini, Leopard Webkit on the G4). I'm posting this from the Quicksilver, and there's no typing lag or any other annoying problems. In all honesty, I find it's performance quite acceptable.

Again, the main thing where the Mini excels is in watching Youtube videos. I can actually get away with it using Mactubes on the G4, but it still pegs both CPUs and slows the system down.

Playing around with Photoshop on both systems(CS4 on the G4, CS3 on the Mini) I find no real difference even when dealing with some of my 30mb+ scans from medium format film. I click on an area with the spot healing brush, and stuff just happens immediately. I might play with some lens correction filters or some other more intensive functions later, but at least with doing the basic stuff I do in Photoshop I don't see any difference.

Granted, this is all anecdotal, but just my experience from playing with both for an evening.

bunnspecial said:

G4s are great for writing unless you're integrating a crummy word processor like MS word with other crummy software like Endnote in larger size documents. Then, even an Intel Mac can frustrate you.

Click to expand...

Funny you should say that since MS Word is absolutely my favourite word processor. Nothing else comes close in terms of features and compatibility.

bunnspecial said:

G4s are great for writing unless you're integrating a crummy word processor like MS word with other crummy software like Endnote in larger size documents. Then, even an Intel Mac can frustrate you.

Click to expand...

If you're using Word 2008, then I'll give you that it's crummy. 2004 to me is the most usable of the Office suites on PowerPC. My second choice is Office 2001 for OS 9. I actually use it and it feels just as fine as 2004.

MysticCow said:

If you're using Word 2008, then I'll give you that it's crummy. 2004 to me is the most usable of the Office suites on PowerPC. My second choice is Office 2001 for OS 9. I actually use it and it feels just as fine as 2004.

Click to expand...

Agreed. 2004 was the best.

Anything after 2008 with the "banner" drives me nuts

I'm using '08 on PPC and '11 on my MBP.

I rely too much on XML compatibility to use anything lower than '08.

'11 is better than '08, but not by a whole lot.

----------

A.Goldberg said:

Agreed. 2004 was the best.

Anything after 2008 with the "banner" drives me nuts

Click to expand...

Fortunately '08 lacks the "banner" but that doesn't make up for a lot of its other problems.

bunnspecial said:

I'm using '08 on PPC and '11 on my MBP.

Click to expand...

Same here. '08 on the PPC and '11 on the Mini, MBP, and MBA.

bunnspecial said:

I'm using '08 on PPC and '11 on my MBP.

I rely too much on XML compatibility to use anything lower than '08.

'11 is better than '08, but not by a whole lot.

----------



Fortunately '08 lacks the "banner" but that doesn't make up for a lot of its other problems.

Click to expand...

I stupidly upgraded to 2008 years ago and quickly became disappointed. I can't seem to find where I left my 2004 install discs, otherwise I probably would have switched back. The bannered versions (2010+). The first time I used it I literally could not figure out how to even print or save (other than ctrl-p / s)

MS Office is great, but I cannot stand the incompatibility issues between various releases and the Mac and PC versions. Thankfully this has improved over the years, but I remember in college making presentations at home on PPT for Mac and presenting on a PC, and having everything messed up. This is particularly true with the equation editor! I also hate how Apple never released Access for Mac. Office 365 is such a rip off too.

My dad's company switched to 2010 years ago and ended up having to install the Classic View plug-in because all the old timers couldn't get used to the new version.

A.Goldberg said:

I stupidly upgraded to 2008 years ago and quickly became disappointed. I can't seem to find where I left my 2004 install discs, otherwise I probably would have switched back. The bannered versions (2010+). The first time I used it I literally could not figure out how to even print or save (other than ctrl-p / s)

MS Office is great, but I cannot stand the incompatibility issues between various releases and the Mac and PC versions. Thankfully this has improved over the years, but I remember in college making presentations at home on PPT for Mac and presenting on a PC, and having everything messed up.

I use Office 2010 at work and I have adapted to the banner, though I still dislike it. I know at my father's company, the IT department ended up installing the Classic Menu plug-in for Office 2010 to revert it back to the old style since there were so many complaints.

Click to expand...

I've used '10 and '11 enough that I'm actually relatively comfortable with the "ribbon" but still prefer the menus and toolbars in '07/'08. I spent a while using PPT '08 this morning, as I needed to do some Photoshop work on some of the figures in an upcoming presentation and don't have PS on my MBP. BTW, some people rave about Gimp, but I can get so much more done and do it so much faster in Photoshop than I can in Gimp. I usually end up beating my head against the wall in Gimp.