iMac G4 good Leopard machine?

[eyoungren]

The iBook G4 2005 models (A1133) that came with Tiger had a default amount of 512 MB RAM. Granted, it was upgradable to 1.5 GB but I don't know if the option was available with the order.

That's the problem though I think and in large part one of the reasons that Leopard got such a bad rap.

It's true that Leopard needs more ram. But the current mentality of upgrading to the max whenever possible is something that has only recently taken hold on the average user. Most Mac users of that time period were just plain comfortable with whatever they had and expected everything to work as they upgraded the OS.

If you upgraded the OS and got a speed hit because you didn't upgrade your ram then who or what do you blame?

Let's face it. Most Apple users (with few exceptions) are completely intractable when it comes to upgrading. Oh, the anguish and knashing of teeth when Apple introduces something new that requires a hardware upgrade! Even us!

If it were up to us we'd all still be using PowerPC chips running, what? 10.5.9?

So, there's my point. Tiger users of the time just expected to be able to use their Macs in whatever way they had them configured with a brand new pretty OS. But, it just didn't happen that way.

 

[MysticCow]

Clock for clock (meaning the processor is the same speed), a PowerMac G4 will beat an iMac G4. This is for several reasons, including L3 cache. The single processor 1.25 MDD PowerMac will be faster than a 1.25 GHz iMac G4.

Now if you're set on getting the iMac, a 17 inch model is going to be slightly faster than a 20 inch model, clock for clock. It may seem weird because everything looks the same except for the screen, but it's true.

 

[Hrududu]

RAM is cheap. If you're going to use the thing, just fill it up to the max and be done with it. No sense in paying a lot for an old Mac then being stingy with the $40 it would take to fill it up. Can you run it with 512MB or 768? Sure, but there really isn't any reason to.

 

[vb7200]

Clock for clock (meaning the processor is the same speed), a PowerMac G4 will beat an iMac G4. This is for several reasons, including L3 cache. The single processor 1.25 MDD PowerMac will be faster than a 1.25 GHz iMac G4.

Now if you're set on getting the iMac, a 17 inch model is going to be slightly faster than a 20 inch model, clock for clock. It may seem weird because everything looks the same except for the screen, but it's true.

I don't need a Leopard machine to do any heavy lifting at all considering I have a rMBP. I really want Leopard for nostaligic (if you can even call it that).

 

[128keaton]

I don't need a Leopard machine to do any heavy lifting at all considering I have a rMBP. I really want Leopard for nostaligic (if you can even call it that).

*nostalgia, and yes, thats why I have mine . But 1GB should be sufficient for light, old games and web browsing. Heck, I run Leopard on my iBook with 256MB and I browse the web with it comfortably.

 

[MysticCow]

I don't need a Leopard machine to do any heavy lifting at all considering I have a rMBP. I really want Leopard for nostaligic (if you can even call it that).

Oh, I understand that perfectly (I have an i5 mini for big use here). I'm stating that if you want the best performance from a PowerPC Mac, then you need to look at those little things.

 

[vb7200]

Oh, I understand that perfectly (I have an i5 mini for big use here). I'm stating that if you want the best performance from a PowerPC Mac, then you need to look at those little things.

Yeah I get what you're saying. Any PowerPC Mac these days have to be maxed out if you want to get anything out of them.

 

[Jessica Lares]

My 17" iMac G4 has less than 1GB RAM. I run Photoshop and other stuff on it perfectly fine. A bad hard drive can kill any setup.

 

[eyoungren]

My 17" iMac G4 has less than 1GB RAM. I run Photoshop and other stuff on it perfectly fine. A bad hard drive can kill any setup.

I think what he was wondering though Jessica, was how well will Leopard run on it. You didn't mention which OS you are using on it.

 

[Jessica Lares]

I think what he was wondering though Jessica, was how well will Leopard run on it. You didn't mention which OS you are using on it.

Leopard of course!

And I would say that Tiger was a lot worse. But then again, that machine has probably never seen an OS reinstall its entire life. Just upgrades.

It was definitely capable of running Final Cut when it first showed up in the photo lab. There was like three literati's of Photoshop on it when I got it too.

 

[eyoungren]

Leopard of course!

And I would say that Tiger was a lot worse. But then again, that machine has probably never seen an OS reinstall its entire life. Just upgrades.

It was definitely capable of running Final Cut when it first showed up in the photo lab. There was like three literati's of Photoshop on it when I got it too.

Cool! Thanks for the clarification!