How useful would a G3 iMac be today?

[bunnspecial]

Do those RAM-chips fit the Clamshell?

Yes.

They will also work in a tray loading iMac, with the caveat being that they will only be recognized as 256mb. That may be true of some Clamshells also-I don't remember and am feeling too lazy to look up the specifics. I know I have a 512mb stick for a total of 564mb(or is it 548mb?) in my FW Clamshell.

While we're at it, those same sticks will also work all Powerbooks from the original Wallstreet up to the last Titanium PB(although in the Lombard and earlier will read as 256mb). They will work in user-accessible slot of early iMac G4s.
[doublepost=1462996177][/doublepost]

That's true and mostly I do - however, after a spell of buying cheap "Mac compatible" RAM from ebay that didn't work (from sellers who point blank refused to refund) I went to reputable companies, Maplin & Crucial Memory - guaranteed to work...and also empty your wallet

Your mileage may very(considerably) but short of a completely dead stick I've yet to find any SD-RAM that wouldn't work in a Mac. The biggest issue I've run into is occasionally getting HD 256mb sticks that were advertised as LD-depending on the computer they will either read at half capacity or not at all.

The only time I've found it necessary to use a specialty supplier is with pre-G3 era Macs(although I've had good luck with 30 and 72 pin SIMMs salvaged from PCs). In those cases, OWC is my supplier of choice. And, of course, with older Powerbooks the odds of finding a memory card in a RAM junk box are slim to none.

 

[0248294]

Yes.

They will also work in a tray loading iMac, with the caveat being that they will only be recognized as 256mb. That may be true of some Clamshells also-I don't remember and am feeling too lazy to look up the specifics. I know I have a 512mb stick for a total of 564mb(or is it 548mb?) in my FW Clamshell.

According to EveryMac, even the original Clamshells will take a 512MB RAM module. Though I assume it has to be a low density stick like the one I showed.

 

[bobesch]

It will be "useful" as a historical curiosity only.

RAM will be expensive or unavailable, as will additional storage. It will be slow. The OS is out of support and has no security updates. If you try to do many of the basic tasks people do these days (e.g., watch HD video) it will struggle. Let alone stuff like editing HD or 4k video.

On top of that, the hardware is old and hardware failure is a thing.

Put it this way, you could get a better performing machine for a couple of hundred dollars or less with a more recent processor and more RAM in it.

If you value your time (and you should, life is short and your free time is more valuable if you are employed, IMHO than what you get paid at work because you have less of it) then the cost of using a G3 to do things instead of something faster will add up quickly.

But if you want one to play with, then go for it.

Basically a lot of your arguments come close to reality...
... if I resume my todays trip trying to do basic things on a Clamshell with OS9.
I did a fresh install of OS9 on my brand-new Tangerine-Clamshell.
Classilla web/email ok
webDAV with Goliath ok
Connection to virtual W2K with Dave ok
Office2001/Adobe5/AppleWorks6/iTunes-webRadio/etc ok
But then:
- System freezed and needs hard reset a few times
- Composing mail with Classical causes the system to pause for a few minutes.
- Finally sending mail failed and I move the message by copy&paste to a word-doc and to the webDAV to continue writing on my MB2008.
Now I'm really really a bit disappointed about MacOS9.
Returning to the initial question about usefulness of a G3 iMac (or Book): I also think about MacOS9 as something like being " 'useful' as a historical curiosity" and on the other hand I still like to play around with it. But Panther or Tiger would be my minimum as a recommendation for real 'work' like web/email/writing etc
And honestly: I also felt great relieve after switching back to my (also historical) MB2008 with ElCapitan to finish writing/sending mail.

PS: any idea how to stop MacOS9 recurrent episodes of 1-2 min not reacting or even completly freezing?

 

[jbarley]

bobesch, a "quote" with nothing added, did you forget what you wanted to say?

 

[bobesch]

bobesch, a "quote" with nothing added, did you forget what you wanted to say?

No - just a freezed brain... Haha
Pushed the wrong button before I even started to type...
Or maybe ......... I get similar to .......... my MacOS9 with it's recurrent episodes of .......pausing action.

PS: thanks mods looking after the recent postings... (and sorry about loosing 'contenance')

 

[0248294]

Why is the PowerPC Mac group suddenly target to people that do not care at all about PPC Macs wanting to get hypocritically high and mighty while judging others for it? It's extremely pointless, that's what it is. If you don't own or care about PowerPC Macs, just don't post here, there's really no point in it and this is just stirring more controversy. A lock on this old thread would probably do us all well.

EDIT: Welp, the person in question has deleted their posts, so now I look like an idiot rambling at nothing. Great But again, if a mod could lock this thread up, that'd be great.

 

[bobesch]

A lock on this old thread would probably do us all well.

Since PPC/MacOS9 is old stuff I don't mind to see old threads recalled. Better than a dying community without anything to talk about (I saw this happened to my favorite forum about Palm devices...)
If the discussion would follow the initial question, everything would be fine.
But instead...
Ha, I'm in a bad mood today since despite all my efforts to get OS9 working flawless I encountered a lot of freezing or lags on the clamshell today...

 

[bunnspecial]

Ha, I'm in a bad mood today since despite all my efforts to get OS9 working flawless I encountered a lot of freezing or lags on the clamshell today...

Is this the first time you've used the Clamshell, or have you previously had it running with some other OS?

I ask that because the newest Clamshells are now 15 years old or so, and I'd venture to guess that many are still on their original hard drives. HDD technology advanced a lot between 1999 and 2012(when ATA drives basically quit being manufactured) and even in top condition the old 4400 rpm ~10gb drive that probably came in your Clamshell when it was new isn't going to win any speed contests(although my Clamshell does have its factory drive and I don't notice much bottleneck in it). If your HDD is on the way out, however, it can can cause all manner of misery and could cause the symptoms you describe.

In fact, I've been noticing for a while that Pismo "feels" slower than my Clamshell despite having a faster processor(500mhz vs. 366) and nearly twice the RAM(1gb vs. 578mb). I'm running the Pismo on a 60gb drive that I salvaged from work, and I think it may be on the way out. I have a couple of 60gb 7200 rpms put back(2.5" ATA drives don't exactly grow on trees these days) and have been meaning to put one in the Pismo.

To add to that, when I got the Pismo(the first one, that is) it came with the factory HDD(I don't remember the capacity). I tossed that drive in a drawer labeled as such. A couple of months back, I bought another Pismo(mysteriously 450mhz-I can't figure out why) that didn't have an HDD in it. It's decently perky with the HDD from my first Pismo.

 

[bobesch]

Is this the first time you've used the Clamshell, or have you previously had it running with some other OS?

I ask that because the newest Clamshells are now 15 years old or so, and I'd venture to guess that many are still on their original hard drives. HDD technology advanced a lot between 1999 and 2012(when ATA drives basically quit being manufactured) and even in top condition the old 4400 rpm ~10gb drive that probably came in your Clamshell when it was new isn't going to win any speed contests(although my Clamshell does have its factory drive and I don't notice much bottleneck in it). If your HDD is on the way out, however, it can can cause all manner of misery and could cause the symptoms you describe.

In fact, I've been noticing for a while that Pismo "feels" slower than my Clamshell despite having a faster processor(500mhz vs. 366) and nearly twice the RAM(1gb vs. 578mb). I'm running the Pismo on a 60gb drive that I salvaged from work, and I think it may be on the way out. I have a couple of 60gb 7200 rpms put back(2.5" ATA drives don't exactly grow on trees these days) and have been meaning to put one in the Pismo.

To add to that, when I got the Pismo(the first one, that is) it came with the factory HDD(I don't remember the capacity). I tossed that drive in a drawer labeled as such. A couple of months back, I bought another Pismo(mysteriously 450mhz-I can't figure out why) that didn't have an HDD in it. It's decently perky with the HDD from my first Pismo.

Oh thanks! That gives me some hope...
It's obviously a Clamshell of the first hour with 32MB-RAM on-board and a "singing" 3GB HDD.
I was amazed about the small footprint of MacOS9 and the bunch of apps I've installed - still 1GB left yet.
Maybe I should go for a new drive, since a few minutes ago the system freezed, while the HDD had been indexed.
The Tangerine-Clamshell together with OS9 is really nice stuff and eye-candy and IMHO worth the effort.

 

[bunnspecial]

Oh thanks! That gives me some hope...
It's obviously a Clamshell of the first hour with 32MB-RAM on-board and a "singing" 3GB HDD.
I was amazed about the small footprint of MacOS9 and the bunch of apps I've installed - still 1GB left yet.
Maybe I should go for a new drive, since a few minutes ago the system freezed, while the HDD had been indexed.
The Tangerine-Clamshell together with OS9 is really nice stuff and eye-candy and IMHO worth the effort.

IMO, 32mb of RAM is really too little for comfortable OS 9 operation.

Were it mine, I'd switch back to 8.6, which was the shipping OS. It has a much smaller resource "footprint" than OS 9. I like 8.6 specifically for lower-resource computers. One advantage it DOES have on a Clamshell is that 8.6 supports USB mass storage devices, something not supported in 8.1(original iMac) and 8.5.x("5 flavors" iMacs and B&W G3). 8.6 will run many "OS 9" programs including Classilla. Since 8.6 was the shipping OS, you may need a machine specific install-a lot have popped up on the Garden over the past year. I might have the iBook 8.6 disk, and if I do and it's not there, I'll upload it.

My Kanga fortunately came to me maxed at 160mb of RAM(try finding a 128mb card for one of those) and I've kept the 8.6 install that was on it intact.

I consider 128mb a reasonable minimum for comfortable OS 9 operation, although others may disagree. A forum member here very, very generously gave me a PM 6500 a few months ago. It came with 9.2.2 installed along with 64mb of RAM. It took some digging and a lot of testing in my assorted RAM box to get a match pair of 64mb sticks for 128mb, something which perked up the computer a fair bit.

 

[WalkerTexasRanger]

any idea how to stop MacOS9 recurrent episodes of 1-2 min not reacting or even completly freezing?

Sounds to me like the hard drive is going bad, all of those issues you described are typical of a dying hard drive.

 

[throAU]

Don't get me wrong guys.

I understand retro computing is fun. I'd love a next cube. But as to being "useful" (which was the question) you'll get far more done, far cheaper with a raspberry Pi which is worth about $40 and will run modern software.

And that was the context my answer was given in.

Not in the context of
"Your G3 is so old and slow, lol what a crap Mac" or anything like that.

My quip about expensive or unavailable parts was based on buying new. If you're willing to deal within and troubleshoot potentially not working second hand parts then sure... But again. Context. As soon as you pay $10 for a part plus shipping you're already 25% of the way to buying a new raspberry Pi for example. And bang for buck the Pi will just slaughter it.

 

[Brad9893]

Don't get me wrong guys.

I understand retro computing is fun. I'd love a next cube. But as to being "useful" (which was the question) you'll get far more done, far cheaper with a raspberry Pi which is worth about $40 and will run modern software.

And that was the context my answer was given in.

Not in the context of
"Your G3 is so old and slow, lol what a crap Mac" or anything like that.

My quip about expensive or unavailable parts was based on buying new. If you're willing to deal within and troubleshoot potentially not working second hand parts then sure... But again. Context. As soon as you pay $10 for a part plus shipping you're already 25% of the way to buying a new raspberry Pi for example. And bang for buck the Pi will just slaughter it.

Everything you say is technically true, but I just don't think that's the point of this forum. Cheaper hardware that can run modern software is just not the focus of most people here. I think the point is that these Macs have a special appeal to people here that newer machines don't, often because of the design of the hardware or older OS X versions, and that keeping them running for as long as they can is what matters. The fact that a Raspberry Pi may be more sensible or a better value in 2016 does not enter into the equation. Of course, I say this as an outsider who has never owned a PowerPC Mac.

 

[bobesch]

Since the initial question was "How useful would a G3 iMac be today?" there's certainly more than just one point of view and throAU's postings might help enthusiasts (like me - and him too) think about the next expense on any exciting old stuff ...
[doublepost=1463084171][/doublepost]

Sounds to me like the hard drive is going bad, all of those issues you described are typical of a dying hard drive.

Thanks for making me hope, that the Tangerine will be fine after a HDD-liftup.
(it's 'sleeping' again while I'm trying to rescue it's HDD-content to my PB via FTP - guess this project doesn't come to a good end ...)

 

[jbarley]

Everything you say is technically true, but I just don't think that's the point of this forum. Cheaper hardware that can run modern software is just not the focus of most people here. I think the point is that these Macs have a special appeal to people here that newer machines don't, often because of the design of the hardware or older OS X versions, and that keeping them running for as long as they can is what matters. The fact that a Raspberry Pi may be more sensible or a better value in 2016 does not enter into the equation. Of course, I say this as an outsider who has never owned a PowerPC Mac.

And I will agree with you, as a Canadian who has on at least two occasions happily coughed up $150+ just for the shipping costs on two G5's not to mention the actual sale price from a California reseller.
Living on the Canadian west coast, and an island to boot does have its ups but also its downs.
PowerPC's, to me are a hobby, and like most hobbies cost runs a slow second behind availability and acquiring.

 

[MRxROBOT]

Don't get me wrong guys.

I understand retro computing is fun. I'd love a next cube. But as to being "useful" (which was the question) you'll get far more done, far cheaper with a raspberry Pi which is worth about $40 and will run modern software.

And that was the context my answer was given in.

Not in the context of
"Your G3 is so old and slow, lol what a crap Mac" or anything like that.

My quip about expensive or unavailable parts was based on buying new. If you're willing to deal within and troubleshoot potentially not working second hand parts then sure... But again. Context. As soon as you pay $10 for a part plus shipping you're already 25% of the way to buying a new raspberry Pi for example. And bang for buck the Pi will just slaughter it.

The same could be said of anybody with a classic car. Costs of restoration and upkeep of a '63 Stingray would quickly outpace the cost of a new Honda Fit, but wouldn't it just be cool to have a '63 Stingray . For some the answer is no and for others it's a passion much like PPCs. As you pointed out in regards to context, a G3 is less useful in all practical senses than a new Raspberry Pi but the Raspberry Pi just isn't as cool as the G3.

 

[throAU]

The same could be said of anybody with a classic car. Costs of restoration and upkeep of a '63 Stingray would quickly outpace the cost of a new Honda Fit, but wouldn't it just be cool to have a '63 Stingray . For some the answer is no and for others it's a passion much like PPCs. As you pointed out in regards to context, a G3 is less useful in all practical senses than a new Raspberry Pi but the Raspberry Pi just isn't as cool as the G3.

Agreed. But cool is not "useful" and the question was "how useful" the thing was.

Seems that some people get offended if you actually answer the questions people have....

 

[MRxROBOT]

Agreed. But cool is not "useful" and the question was "how useful" the thing was.

Seems that some people get offended if you actually answer the questions people have....

Not offended here and I agreed for all intents and purposes the Raspberry Pi is more useful.

To be fair I don't see where the OP asked "how useful" the thing was either in relation to other PCs, just how useful it could be. Also, the Raspberry Pi didn't make it's debut until 2012.

 

[Dronecatcher]

To be fair, I don't see where the OP asked "how useful" the thing was either.

It's a common question on the forum, "I've got a Mac - what should I do with it?"
I find it the same as saying, "I've got a car - where should I drive?"

 

[MagicBoy]

Agreed. But cool is not "useful" and the question was "how useful" the thing was.

Seems that some people get offended if you actually answer the questions people have....

The question was asked 8 years ago.