G4's Get Shafted

[ghking]

Its kind of sad. A lot of features in Leopard don't work on G4s such as photobooth, ichat backdrops, quality video conferencing, obviously bootcamp, and even DVD Player. Anyway I love my eMac but i cant wait till college when i get a nice sleek new intel macbook...

 

[RumMunkey]

I feel your pain. I have a former workhorse (really... it was a professional graphic design Mac when it was made) that is basically coming up on the end of it's use to me (I need to do stuff, like say, run the new iMovie).

It's weird, I have a Dual 1 Ghz PPC with 1.5 Gb of Ram and a 500 GB HDD, but it's still not able to do a lot of the new stuff. That switch to Intel really put a fork in the road didn't it?

Luckily, I'm in position to be able to swing an upgrade to a brand new iMac next month, but I imagine not a lot of us are going to be that lucky.

I'll pass this old mirror-door G4 onto my nieces, to see if I can't get them Mac Addicted at a young age, so all is not lost eh?

 

[dborja]

It's the price of progress. No matter that Apple switched to Intel CPUs; newer chipsets and CPUs (even if it were still PowerPC) enable more neat stuff that OSes will take advantage of that simply are beyond the capabilities of "older" systems. Backward compatibility can only go so far...

It's not an intentional shafting of users - it's the lifecycle of technology. It is, however, perfectly ok not to upgrade. I have to use a Windows machine at work and I'm not pushing to upgrade my XP to Vista. Leopard, though, is a different story - it's definitely worth the upgrade. I'm just fortunate that I was able to sell my MacMini G4 and get an Intel iMac...

 

[RumMunkey]

No, I agree. Hell, I'm buying an iMac so I can run Leopard correctly. How retarded is that?!?!

What I find weird is that I have a DUAL 1 Ghz! That's not a typical home user 400 Mhz G4! 1 + 1 = 2. It's essentially a 2 ghz machine... equal to the current low-end iMacs!

But because iLife sees a Power PC, it won't even install iMovie. Won't even try.

There's a bit of a sting in the switch from PPC to Intel for those of us still running PPCs. I wouldn't say "screwed", but... maybe more of a "bump in the road". A lot of stuff that would normally be supported in a machine only 6 years old isn't being because of this. 6 years isn't THAT old. Hell, my company still runs an AS/400 dumb-terminal network, DOS and OS/2 on fairly important systems. We have black screens with green text. Menus only. No GUI. It's 2007, but because it still works, we gotta use it.

But I digress...

Same can be said in the Windows world I guess. The hardware requirements to jump from XP to Vista left a lot of people behind too.

Not everyone has a tolerant enough wife that will put up with me coming home one day and exclaiming "Honey, we need a new Mac. Don't ask why, we just do. Give me $2500.00."

 

[quagmire]

A feature of DVD player doesn't work. DVD player should still be able to work on G4's to play DVD's as usual. If it doesn't work period, I could smell a good lawsuit that the consumer should win.

 

[unity]

Ya, the DVD will be fine but the new enhanced de-interlacing/line scanning or something require some extra CPU power to work well.

 

[Nugget]

What I find weird is that I have a DUAL 1 Ghz! That's not a typical home user 400 Mhz G4! 1 + 1 = 2. It's essentially a 2 ghz machine... equal to the current low-end iMacs!

Except if you follow this logic, the current low-end iMacs are "essentially" 4 GHz machines.

 

[zen.state]

No, I agree. Hell, I'm buying an iMac so I can run Leopard correctly. How retarded is that?!?!

What I find weird is that I have a DUAL 1 Ghz! That's not a typical home user 400 Mhz G4! 1 + 1 = 2. It's essentially a 2 ghz machine... equal to the current low-end iMacs!

Its called evolution of technology. Dual 1Ghz G4's were current 5 years ago and you expect it to be fully supported 100% by a new OS?

Also.. I can tell you with great certainty that your dual 1GHz G4 is NOT equal to the new low end imacs. Even the entry level mini that I have would blow away your machine. My 1.83GHz Core 2 Duo mac mini scores higher than a dual 2.3GHz G5 in xbench.

So to put things in perspective.. The quad G5 is the only PowerPC mac that is faster than the current entry level mac mini.

 

[cooknwitha]

This is why I'm upgrading to an Intel machine now. I don't know how much longer the resale value will hover around a nice amount for the PPC machines.

 

[RumMunkey]

How did I get on this side of the argument??

All I meant to say was there's a definite disconnect between the PPC and the Intel processors, and those of us who haven't made the jump yet feel a bit slighted or left behind at times.

I'm upgrading remember. I didn't mean to start a "My PPC is every bit as good as your Intel Mac" war. I'm gonna drop $2,500 on an Intel Mac! Don't try and tell my wife I don't have to! I do!

I just feel the OPs pain that sometimes it feels like "wow, time to upgrade already?" and "Would I HAVE to upgrade if Apple still made Power PCs? If we were on G6 by now, would the G4 be SO left behind?"

 

[RumMunkey]

Except if you follow this logic, the current low-end iMacs are "essentially" 4 GHz machines.

Wait... why are you doubling the iMacs to 4 ghz?

I'm not a computer builder, but there's only 1 actual physical processor in the iMacs, no? it runs at 2.0 or 2.4 Ghz (depending on the model), no? Where do you get 4?

I'm not trying to be a smart ass here... I'm actually asking.

I take "Dual 1 ghz" to mean there are TWO 1 ghz processors working in tandem, which one can reasonably expect to output at close to 2 ghz in total.

In the iMacs, there is one 2 ghz processor working away. Where do you get 4? because it's "dual core"??

Again, I'm actually asking here so don't flame me... is "dual core" really the same thing as "dual processor"?

 

[zen.state]

Wait... why are you doubling the iMacs to 4 ghz?

I'm not a computer builder, but there's only 1 actual physical processor in the iMacs, no? it runs at 2.0 or 2.4 Ghz (depending on the model), no? Where do you get 4?

I'm not trying to be a smart ass here... I'm actually asking.

I take "Dual 1 ghz" to mean there are TWO 1 ghz processors working in tandem, which one can reasonably expect to output at close to 2 ghz in total.

In the iMacs, there is one 2 ghz processor working away. Where do you get 4? because it's "dual core"??

Again, I'm actually asking here so don't flame me... is "dual core" really the same thing as "dual processor"?

Your G4 does have 2 cpu's but they are shared on a single 167MHz bus. The Core 2 Duo chips have 2 cores which with current technology is better than 2 separate cpu's and it runs on a 667MHz bus. Thats a flood gate 4 times wider than your G4.

Each core runs at the cpu's rated speed.

 

[otis123]

Its kind of sad. A lot of features in Leopard don't work on G4s such as photobooth, ichat backdrops, quality video conferencing, obviously bootcamp, and even DVD Player. Anyway I love my eMac but i cant wait till college when i get a nice sleek new intel macbook...

DVD player will work (if it doesnt i will crap a brick) the 1.6ghz is for de interlacing, i still plan on getting leopard or my compy and it will run great, still debating over fresh install or upgrade...

 

[robbieduncan]

In the iMacs, there is one 2 ghz processor working away. Where do you get 4? because it's "dual core"??

Again, I'm actually asking here so don't flame me... is "dual core" really the same thing as "dual processor"?

Dual core is, in your over simplified way of looking at things, the same as dual CPU. There are two distinct CPUs on the same die. And it's worth noting that dual-core or dual-CPU you can't simply add the speeds together. Sure they can do two things at one, but if there is only one thing to do they only 1 CPU gets used. And it's also worth noting that current (this did not used to be the case, but is true now) Intel CPUs do more per clock than a G4. Looking at it objectively a dual 1Ghz G4 is very very slow in todays terms. It's not even close to as fast as a single-core 2Ghz Intel Core CPU, let along a dual-core one.

 

[weaverra]

Dual core is, in your over simplified way of looking at things, the same as dual CPU. There are two distinct CPUs on the same die. And it's worth noting that dual-core or dual-CPU you can't simply add the speeds together. Sure they can do two things at one, but if there is only one thing to do they only 1 CPU gets used. And it's also worth noting that current (this did not used to be the case, but is true now) Intel CPUs do more per clock than a G4. Looking at it objectively a dual 1Ghz G4 is very very slow in todays terms. It's not even close to as fast as a single-core 2Ghz Intel Core CPU, let along a dual-core one.

Actually you can use that as combined power. The only difference they are split in half. If you had a 4 GHz processor is it going to use all the 4 GHz at the same time? No, it's bandwidth. Each cores run off two separate busses. It's more efficient to have 2 2GHz processors on 2 separate busses than even an 6 GHz processor on one bus considering the bus speed was the same on both. Is there the same processing power as there is with a 4 GHz processor? Yes there is. Basically you have two highways to push all your data down rather than one with the same amount of data.

 

[TheReef]

Does anybody know if Leopard will even install on a 450Mhz Sawtooth?
867 or higher…what about the dual 533s ?

 

[robbieduncan]

Actually you can use that as combined power. The only difference they are split in half. If you had a 4 GHz processor is it going to use all the 4 GHz at the same time? No, it's bandwidth. Each cores run off two separate busses. It's more efficient to have 2 2GHz processors on 2 separate busses than even an 6 GHz processor on one bus considering the bus speed was the same on both. Is there the same processing power as there is with a 4 GHz processor? Yes there is. Basically you have two highways to push all your data down rather than one with the same amount of data.

Busses are not the limiting factor for most code: threading is, which is what i was talking about when I said "one thing to do". If your application is not threaded, or the operation you are doing only runs in one thread no matter how many CPUs you have, separated by any number of buses, only one will be used.

 

[bigandy]

A feature of DVD player doesn't work. DVD player should still be able to work on G4's to play DVD's as usual. If it doesn't work period, I could smell a good lawsuit that the consumer should win.

How on earth is that a 'good lawsuit'? It's just another completely idiotic one. Oh no, a new version of some software has a feature that won't work on your (likely several year old) computer. Deal with it. Upgrade. Stop thinking everything can be solved by a bloody lawsuit.

And it's worth noting that dual-core or dual-CPU you can't simply add the speeds together.

No, because doing that would be using 'eBay marketing'

Does anybody know if Leopard will even install on a 450Mhz Sawtooth?
867 or higher…what about the dual 533s ?

http://www.apple.com/macosx/techspecs/

It's 867mhz or higher until XPostFacto is updated.

 

[Yoursh]

Does anybody know if Leopard will even install on a 450Mhz Sawtooth?
867 or higher…what about the dual 533s ?

From what I've read online, people have been able to run the leopard betas on macs that don't meet the min. requirements. It takes a bit of work though. You have to install leopard on an external drive via a PPC mac that meets the install requirements. Then clone the drive over to the older mac via target disc mode or software like Carbon copy cloner.

At this point it's unknown if this will work with a retail copy or not. Even if you can, most who have done it have said that it runs fairly poor on the early G4's. For example the coverflow function in the finder is very slow to respond.

As to the original post, coming from a 'mixed' household(PPC+Intel), it's sad to see but I can see why they would drop the older G4's. They may be able to run leopard but that doesn't mean it will run well. Apple's all about the user experience. Apple(i.e. Jobs the perfectionist) doesn't want their newest and greatest OS running like crap for the user. They want the user to be able to have a unified experience over any mac they use. Just look at Vista for example. It can run on much older equipment, but it runs like ass. Besides, that's only the 'home basic' version which is stripped of most of the new features Microsoft promoted. You just have to look at the reviews and sales to see that this isn't the best way to go. A bad user experience can lead to negative brand asociation.

 

[Nugget]

Again, I'm actually asking here so don't flame me... is "dual core" really the same thing as "dual processor"?

Stated simply: yes. Dual core is the same thing as Dual processor, except the two CPUs are both inside the same physical unit. From a software and performance standpoint this is indistinguishable from a machine with two physical CPUs each with a single core.

The other points made above about the pragmatic benefit of multi-core/multi-cpu machines are accurate, but distracting from your actual question.

 

[quagmire]

How on earth is that a 'good lawsuit'? It's just another completely idiotic one. Oh no, a new version of some software has a feature that won't work on your (likely several year old) computer. Deal with it. Upgrade. Stop thinking everything can be solved by a bloody lawsuit.

Because they kill an app just because of one feature can't work on G4's. Especially an app that everyone practically uses. Unless Apple gives us a different app to play DVD's, having DVD player totally not work on G4's is entirely stupid. That is not evolution of technology, that is stupidity of the company. But, that is not the case. DVD player will still work on G4's to play DVD's. It just won't have that new feature. If people sue because of that, then it is stupid. But, they should sue if Apple killed DVD player for G4's period because people can't play DVD's anymore unless Apple replaces it.

 

[rdowns]

Can we please stop with this asinine talk of lawsuits and the sense of entitlement that Apple, or any company, is required to provide functionality beyond what they publish as the specs or for older technology.


/rant

 

[sananda]

Can we please stop with this asinine talk of lawsuits and the sense of entitlement that Apple, or any company, is required to provide functionality beyond what they publish as the specs or for older technology.


/rant

actually can we stop using the phrase "sense of entitlement"? i've never heard anyone use it except in this forum. and it's used so much here, it's beginning to annoy.

 

[Cromulent]

What I find weird is that I have a DUAL 1 Ghz! That's not a typical home user 400 Mhz G4! 1 + 1 = 2. It's essentially a 2 ghz machine... equal to the current low-end iMacs!

No it isn't.

In fact the new iMacs (low end or not) will stomp your machine into the ground in terms of performance. There is a lot more to computers than just adding numbers together.

Plus you can't just add the two CPU speeds together to get a total equivalent in terms of power multiple CPU systems do not work that way. There are bottle necks in the system that mean it is slower than a single CPU 2Ghz G4 would be (system bus is the main one).

 

[thomasp]

Ya, the DVD will be fine but the new enhanced de-interlacing/line scanning or something require some extra CPU power to work well.

Stupid question, but what is de-interlacing and why would I benefit from it?

Its kind of sad. A lot of features in Leopard don't work on G4s such as photobooth, ichat backdrops, quality video conferencing, obviously bootcamp, and even DVD Player. Anyway I love my eMac but i cant wait till college when i get a nice sleek new intel macbook...

DVD player will work (if it doesnt i will crap a brick) the 1.6ghz is for de interlacing, i still plan on getting leopard or my compy and it will run great, still debating over fresh install or upgrade...

I've got a 1.5GHz G4 PowerBook which is slightly over 2 years old. It will be incredibly annoying if the feature I use probably most often on my laptop does not work. Especially as 2 months ago I shelled out £200 to have a faulty temperature sensor repaired (the trackpad temperature sensor - the common problem that apple refuse to notice...)

Anyway, it looks like I won't be keeping this laptop for as long as I had originally intended (which was 5 years). I can probably see it getting replaced simply because the G4 chip is so out of date - it's what 6 or 7 years old now?


And to think virtually every feature on Tiger works pretty much perfectly well on a 500MHz G3 iBook with 384Mb RAM (6+ years old) - I put Tiger onto it when my PB was off for repair There were two features that didn't work - one was DVD playing (quite obvious really, as the laptop didn't have a DVD drive!) and the other was the ripple effect on the dashboard when you install a widget.