Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Is a PowerBook G4 Worth Buying?

coupdetat said:
Well I didn't read the whole thread, but don't swap a Pentium M for a G4 if you're mainly concerned about performance! The Pentium M will stomp all over the G4 when it comes to teh snappy. It is the parent of the Core architecture.
Click to expand...

1) "teh snappy" - If this has suddenly become english im changing languages to something coherent, like C.
2) It wont stomp all over it. Their completely different architectures, and just cos its a parent doesnt mean its as good. Next youll be claiming that because PII is a distant relative of the Core Architecture it must stomp over the G3, which it really really just doesn't - and you have to remember the Pentium M is massively held back by Windows.
 
the problem with youtube is that they have changed the encoding algorithm in favor of the Intel architectures.

Try to go on your PB 1.5 to http://exposureroom.com/ and you will be enjoying much higher quality FLASH video than you ever have on crappy youtube. Running nicely.

It's all in the codecs. Google just like Adobe has been trying to screw Mac users and ppl even didn't notice it.
 
Sorry, but you've been drinking too much kool aid if you think a Pentium M is slower than a G4. The P-M still a very good processor that can run Windows 7 with good responsiveness. I'm a PowerPC lover, but definitely not for their performance. I just love the old Apple designs for their personality and reliability. Are you going to try to tell me next that a Core 2 Duo in a Mac is faster than one in a PC? Because I've heard Apple Store staff try to pass that one off on unsuspecting customers.
 
coupdetat said:
Sorry, but you've been drinking too much kool aid if you think a Pentium M is slower than a G4. The P-M still a very good processor that can run Windows 7 with good responsiveness. I'm a PowerPC lover, but definitely not for their performance. I just love the old Apple designs for their personality and reliability. Are you going to try to tell me next that a Core 2 Duo in a Mac is faster than one in a PC? Because I've heard Apple Store staff try to pass that one off on unsuspecting customers.
Click to expand...

Funny how Ive got a 1.7Ghz Pentium M sat next to a PowerMac G4 Dual 867 (So similar ish Mhz ratings here if we add it all up), same RAM (1.5GB), same HD Space (160GB), the Pentium M is running XP Pro, the G4 10.4.11 (So similar OSes in terms of release date as Ill count XP SP2 as another release as it really was in-effect XP R2). Im saying my G4 is faster than the Pentium M for just about anything, the 1 exception is Youtube (Other Flash is just fine. Youtube doesnt enjoy it for some reason). Especially when it comes to video encoding (Final Cut Express vs Sony Vegas - Final Cut kicks butt on PowerPC (pre v7 that is)). There, example of a Pentium M being MASSIVELY slower than a G4. (The G4 is 3 years older incidentally being 2002 vs 2005). Im not saying that the Architecture changes between Mac and PC, which it doesnt, but the OS certainly helps make the Mac feel faster, work better and speedier, and its more capable (It also crunches data faster and compiles java about twice as fast). It doesnt help that Windows 7 is u-g-l-y on an older GPU, but OS X still looks good on a 32MB Nvidia GeForce 2 - try making Aero like that, it really wont. Leopards UI works just fine however.
 
PowerBook G4's are still worth buying. I just bought a TiBook 867 and am waiting for it to be delivered. I agree with Chris, the G4's are faster in almost everyway than a Pentium M. My gf has one in her laptop and prefers to use my 867 PM G4 over it when she's here because it's just better and faster as she says. And her laptop has twice the RAM of the PM.
 
chrismacguy said:
Funny how Ive got a 1.7Ghz Pentium M sat next to a PowerMac G4 Dual 867 (So similar ish Mhz ratings here if we add it all up), same RAM (1.5GB), same HD Space (160GB), the Pentium M is running XP Pro, the G4 10.4.11 (So similar OSes in terms of release date as Ill count XP SP2 as another release as it really was in-effect XP R2). Im saying my G4 is faster than the Pentium M for just about anything, the 1 exception is Youtube (Other Flash is just fine. Youtube doesnt enjoy it for some reason). Especially when it comes to video encoding (Final Cut Express vs Sony Vegas - Final Cut kicks butt on PowerPC (pre v7 that is)). There, example of a Pentium M being MASSIVELY slower than a G4. (The G4 is 3 years older incidentally being 2002 vs 2005). Im not saying that the Architecture changes between Mac and PC, which it doesnt, but the OS certainly helps make the Mac feel faster, work better and speedier, and its more capable (It also crunches data faster and compiles java about twice as fast). It doesnt help that Windows 7 is u-g-l-y on an older GPU, but OS X still looks good on a 32MB Nvidia GeForce 2 - try making Aero like that, it really wont. Leopards UI works just fine however.
Click to expand...

You can't "add" clock speed with multiple cores. It's just a two lane highway, so it's still two cars going 60, not one car going 120. So no, that's not a fair comparison. Yes they can carry more data at a time, but the data moves just as slow. In fact, even NOW little software takes advantage of multiple cores/CPU's. It's cache size and improved memory that has really changed the game for speed, not more and more cores. A dual 867MHz CPU is two 867MHz CPU's, not equal to one 1.6GHz CPU.
 
el-John-o said:
You can't "add" clock speed with multiple cores. It's just a two lane highway, so it's still two cars going 60, not one car going 120. So no, that's not a fair comparison. Yes they can carry more data at a time, but the data moves just as slow. In fact, even NOW little software takes advantage of multiple cores/CPU's. It's cache size and improved memory that has really changed the game for speed, not more and more cores. A dual 867MHz CPU is two 867MHz CPU's, not equal to one 1.6GHz CPU.
Click to expand...

In effect your supporting my argument, as by your method it should be slower. I knew this and picked it on purpose, as its giving Windows the most favourable environment I can that can still be relatively "fair". Even in single-core tasks, such as simple Browsing and uni-tasking my Dual 867G4 is faster than a 1.7 Pentium M. I picked this as quite simply - it shows that even with the Mac at a HUGE disadvantage it still beats the pants off a Pentium. If I do a "fair" by your methods comparison, and put my PowerBook G4 1.67Ghz against a 1.7Ghz Pentium M, the difference is astronomical. My PowerBook can do everything I throw at it, from Final Cut to Mathematica, at least twice as fast as the Pentium. There, as direct a comparison as its possible to do really (It has a smaller 80GB HD, but identical RAM, and the CPU is 33Mhz slower (1,667 vs 1700) in the PowerBook. Happy with that one? :cool: )
 
Totally unscientific, but I just bought a 12" PowerBook 1.5Ghz G4/1.5GB ram and I'm loving it. Yeah, it's no speed demon but I was quite surprised by how snappy it is. It takes a minute to do what my unibody can do immediately, but it's still perfectly usable for things such as word, email and light internet browsing (i.e no YouTube).

Considering their low price (I picked mine up for $140 shipped) they're definitely worth it. I consider my 12" an iPad competitor at 1/5th to 1/8th the price.
 
I'm really surprised how my 800Mhz G4 PowerBook runs. Sure its not super fast on flash websites, but as a spare backup laptop it works pretty well.
 
Yes and NO

Yes, it will be good for storing things that you don't want to store on your other Macs, so that you will save storage. You can also use it to test programs and other things Like that. Other than that, once OSX Lion comes out this summer, it's going to be worthless in terms of being into-date. This is because Leopard is the Minimum requirements for programs now, when Lion comes out, snow leopard will be the new min.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
cootersgarage6 said:
Other than that, once OSX Lion comes out this summer, it's going to be worthless in terms of being into-date. This is because Leopard is the Minimum requirements for programs now, when Lion comes out, snow leopard will be the new min.
Click to expand...
That's not true. The minimum requirements for apps is not automatically changed with the release of a new OS, and Leopard is not the minimum requirement for many apps. There are hundreds of apps running on current Mac OS X with minimum requirements of 10.4 or later. The introduction of Snow Leopard didn't change that, any more than the introduction of Lion will change that.
 
mabaker said:
You all should read this:

http://lowendmac.com/myturn/11mt/patting-mac-os-9.html

Mac OS 9. On a PowerBook. :)

Some ppl fail to imagine that the PowerBook is still a full fledged computer that can be used to its full potential still in 2011. Even with Mac OS 9.
Click to expand...

Or even my PowerBook 1400/133 and PowerMac 8200/120.... (Rocking Mac OS 7.6) - I use it for some really, really, really old Math software that I haven't bought the replacement for, and to use some of my prehistoric software (read games))
 
chrismacguy said:
Or even my PowerBook 1400/133 and PowerMac 8200/120.... (Rocking Mac OS 7.6) - I use it for some really, really, really old Math software that I haven't bought the replacement for, and to use some of my prehistoric software (read games))
Click to expand...

Exactly! Word processing, old software that runs circles around the new bloated versions - that is why these good old mac are still good for! :D

The best thing is, majority of ppl who buy current generation MacBooks will never use them to their 100% potential. Slower machines with less resource hogging systems get the very very same results with less.
 
exactly what i always say, you just dont need for example Ms office 2008 or 2011 to write some letters or spreadsheets it can still be done with claris works and you dont need a intel i7 for that purpose
if you run a Mac with the software developed at the same time you get real performance , today's software might look nicer (beauty is always in the eye of the beholder )and maybe offers more features , but be honest how often do normal people use these added features , and the bloated GUI's of some apps today are really only GPU /CPU and ram hogging without having any purpose

i like to run OS9 and use claris works 4 on my iMac G3 to do nearly all my office work , its still up to the job ,even that development has stopped already before my iMac's G3 600/700 had been build , and office task have not changed in the last 10 years and letters are still written on din a4 paper ;)
i have office for mac 2004 too and it too works perfect on the same G3 iMac's , so for that kind of work i do not need a faster Mac

and there are a lot more apps available that work as good today as they did 10 years ago
i mean take photoshop LE for OS8 and the photoshop 10 for OSX.6 , what has really changed that is important for user x who wants to make some holiday pics look a bit better
ok i only can speak for myself , but i like the simplicity of the old apps , where you dont need to read a manual bigger then the novel war and peace from tolstoy
and wasn't that the big selling point of Mac's once, the simplicity of use?
and the question we read often "how do i do this " proves even OSX gets more complicated with every release ,as more and more features which most dont even know about or might ever use are getting added
and for all who think playing youtube videos is the most important thing you can do on a computer ...get a life
youtube works well on the same iMac g3's above just not at full screen and 1080 p , but most content in youtube is not even worth looking at 240p (thats what i get on the g3's in the window )it might be funny some content , at times even informative , but it wont justify to buy a 27" iMac only to watch it at 1080p
 
Last edited:
mabaker said:
Exactly! Word processing, old software that runs circles around the new bloated versions - that is why these good old mac are still good for! :D

The best thing is, majority of ppl who buy current generation MacBooks will never use them to their 100% potential. Slower machines with less resource hogging systems get the very very same results with less.
Click to expand...

Or people like me who buy an 06 MBP as an upgrade to his 2001 PB G4 and 2002 PM G4. :D I don't need an i5 or i7, I just need something dual core with more power than my 867 PB and PM. :D
 
macgeek18 said:
Or people like me who buy an 06 MBP as an upgrade to his 2001 PB G4 and 2002 PM G4. :D I don't need an i5 or i7, I just need something dual core with more power than my 867 PB and PM. :D
Click to expand...

To put this in context for myself - I have a Mac Pro because it speeds up what I do, so I get it done faster, however most of my video editing would be perfectly possible on a AMIGA VideoToaster, although I wouldnt like to do it as it would be slower, it would still work. However for most of my office tasks I still use ClarisWorks 4 on that PowerBook, and then zap it across to my Mac Pro and use AppleWorks 6 and the iWork to shift it to something I can share/usefully distribute.
 
macgeek18 said:
Or people like me who buy an 06 MBP as an upgrade to his 2001 PB G4 and 2002 PM G4. :D I don't need an i5 or i7, I just need something dual core with more power than my 867 PB and PM. :D
Click to expand...

thats fair enough and logical , there are tasks that just go easier and a bit quicker on a dual core , that what i have my iMac core duo 1.83 for , plenty fast enough , so no need to spend thousands on something which i might not even use to its full potential , i still do all the dvd ripping on my eMac's to get my whole dvd collection on hdd's and i do cut some tv stuff too on them with final cut pro , my iMac g3's are for office work , my powermac g4 's are for photoediting , , yes i am a collector , but i dont want them only to stay around in shelf's and collect dust , after all they had been build to work , so everyone of my Mac's gets his fair share of work to do , and it makes fun to see that they are still up for the job and are not underpowered
even a 10 year old computer can do things others need a i5 for and have the opinion a 10 year old computer is just old useless electronic waste and should have been on the dump 5 years ago,just because it cannot run the latest version of microsoft office and cant run windows 7:eek:
after all it's a Mac not a pc :p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back