Is it worth investing in PPC Macs?...Still?

[violindoug]

ok i make its quiet simple

Yes , its worth investing in a ppc Mac
if you do NOT cut films /work with photoshop or things like that on a COMMERCIAL basis where you absolutely need the latest 2010 software and if you do not want to play games in windows (because these are the only legitimate reasons to invest in a intel Mac )

I love my iBook for websurfing but now I realize, I'm saving up for a MacBook Pro WITH Photoshop and also so I can use iMovie '09 without trying to hack my iBook and risk messing up the graphics card.

 

[violindoug]

i have 2 iMac g3's and they are more then reliable and both from summer 2001
and spares are extremely easy and cheap to get same for my eMacs from 2006 or my mini's from 2005
and you can take some precautions for example give them a clean inside , change the heat compound as it tries out after a couple years , do regular backups as yes the harddrives might go or the ram

it all depends where you buy them from
if they had been abused in a school or in a office for years before they land on ebay, sold by a dodgy dealer who has no idea about the difference between a rubber duck and a computer

or if they came from a caring owner who cherished them like a pet and ran to the apple store for a service more often then he went to the dentist

I'm kind of laughing at myself about what I'm thinking about the last part because if I bought from an owner like that, it would be extremely nice if he went to the dentist VERY frequently haha.

 

[MacHamster68]

hmm as far as i know ibm thinkpads are using these intel centrinos which are i think pentium M ,on older thinkpads but centrino means also the core sole core duo core 2 duo in later thinkpads , they all had been branded centrino , centrino means the whole thing motherboard chipset and the lot ,
centrino means its safes energy or so and is very confusing as for me there is a tiny difference if i buy a laptop with a pentium M 1.7ghz or with a core 2 duo 1.7ghz , but ibm just branded everything as centrino 1.7ghz for example

 

[drewdle]

hmm as far as i know ibm thinkpads are using these intel centrinos which are i think pentium M ,on older thinkpads but centrino means also the core sole core duo core 2 duo in later thinkpads , they all had been branded centrino , centrino means the whole thing motherboard chipset and the lot ,
centrino means its safes energy or so and is very confusing as for me there is a tiny difference if i buy a laptop with a pentium M 1.7ghz or with a core 2 duo 1.7ghz , but ibm just branded everything as centrino 1.7ghz for example

There's Centrino and Centrino 2, of which I'd probably recommend the second one, as they primarily shipped with Core2Duo chips. But basically the above is exactly it; Centrino just means it's an Intel chipset running Intel components.

Technically, Macs aren't Centrino based because Apple typically goes to other vendors for their wireless, sound, and video solutions, and they use their own motherboard designs (with input from Intel).

 

[D4F]

About a week ago one of my friends wanted to throw out a iMac g5 (light sensor) so I took it. It wouldn't boot and apparently the owner thought of it as super old.

I took it apart, cleaned, replaced memory and installed Leopard.
Apart that video gets a bit laggy sometimes especially using youtube that thing is great.
Installed iTunes, loaded all stuff and i find it as a great email/surfing machine.
Also the speakers are doing great job so I'm happy with this free gift

 

[chrismacguy]

Personally, I have to say the PowerPC still has its place, even in professional settings. I use a PowerBook G4/1.67Ghz to do Audio Editing, using SoundTrack Pro and Logic Pro, sure its not the latest version, but it gets the job done for my video projects, heck I even use my G4/450 tower to do some light titling work (I use a variety of freeware products, and also an old version of Final Cut (v3)), it all works great, and Im not going to move from PowerPC for a long time. (I have a MacBook too, but thats just for the internet and to speed up encoding - I still do say 65% of my editing on PowerPC machines, and am intending on moving them to a G5 soon, long live PPC! )

 

[Carnage Asada]

My g5 1.6 ppc gets the job done! Great for web and iTunes although video seems to struggle but regardless it was my first desktop Mac and I've had it for 7 years. I work on an 8-core at work and would love to upgrade to an intel mAc but cant justify the purchase unless I start getting some more work from home.

 

[mire3212]

I have to disagree with continuation of PPC just because the architecture is not only dead, but was also very inefficient and never got better, even in the G5. I do tech work for Mac clients and see quite a few people still hanging on to the PPC chips, but they don't cut it anymore. Anything on the web that uses flash version 8+ will cause CPU power to get anywhere from 65% to 90% just for some stupid add. Forget flash games, hulu, youtube or anything with HD content. If you're using 10.4, and don't bother with flash, then yes performance will be fine, because it was fine back in 2005 with 10.4 and a lot less intense flash/web 2.0 tricks.

Bottom line is, technology doubles practically every couple years, given that the most recent PPC computers are now at least 4 years old, that puts PPC WAY behind technology. I'm not saying that it doesn't have it's place, such as people who won't give up OS 9 (or even previous) and some of those who use really old software, 'cause it gets the job done,' but it's more worthwhile to invest in a newer intel machine. Plus anything from pre-2006 will be considered Obsolete/Vintage and won't be serviceable by Apple.

Most PC users buy a computer every 18 months. Apple's machine generally last 3-5+ years easy. But that doesn't mean the tech, or ability does.

Just my opinion.

 

[Fishrrman]

"So should I invest in these or should I save up more cash for an Intel Mac?"

Hmmm.... to "invest" suggests you are spending today's capital with the hope for future gain. You are putting your money into something that will "grow", that will "give you back more" than what it is worth _today_.

If you already _have_ a g4 Mac that is working fine, it doesn't make sense to "invest" in more old technology. It does make sense to keep the older tech around for "legacy needs" and a "link backward".

But insofar as buying more hardware is concerned, you should be "looking ahead".

A g4 may work ok in today's environment, but it cannot "grow" in the sense that it can be anything more than "what it is now".

Keep the g4, of course. I'm typing this message on a 2004-vintage PowerMac g4 tower that I still use for most of my day-to-day things. But when I finally decided to get my first Mac laptop (after using Macs for 23 years!), I bought a new MacBook Pro.

Five or six years "down the road", I hope it remains as usable a computing tool as my 6+ PowerMac is today!

 

[mrchinchilla]

Anything on the web that uses flash version 8+ will cause CPU power to get anywhere from 65% to 90% just for some stupid add. Forget flash games, hulu, youtube or anything with HD content.

Computers' purpose is not solely watching videos on the internet. For many CPU-heavy tasks, a G5 can sometimes outperform an Intel chip. Most of the people who are "hanging onto" their PPC Macs aren't the type of people who endlessly watch videos on YouTube.

it's more worthwhile to invest in a newer intel machine.

The price of Macs, since the transition to Intel, has skyrocketed even by Apple's standards and it is only increasing. And if it is outdated after 18+ months, well, you do the math.

Plus anything from pre-2006 will be considered Obsolete/Vintage and won't be serviceable by Apple.

This may be true, however, PPC Macs aren't shiny inaccessible little boxes. Most of the people who still use PPC Macs regularly are perfectly capable—if not more so than the Apple 'engineers'—of servicing/repairing their machines if they should ever encounter a problem, which is far less probable than with an Intel machine.

 

[RebelRed]

I work with Adobe's CS4 suite all day long on a Power Mac G5 that I bought off eBay used for a song (2 of them actually).

I'm sure my video encoding with screen flow might be a little longer, but big deal.

Sure, some stuff is going Intel only (lazy windows programmers), but I've yet to miss out on anything.

Maybe in a couple more years it will be time to move on. We will see.

 

[kernkraft]

eMac for economic Mac fun

From the list, I'd get the ridiculously cheap eMac. If you can, spend the premium on that one and buy a 1.42GHz one.

But it's not an investment, it's an expenditure. I wouldn't bother with the portables and the Mac Pros need more dedication - in theory, several of them can have more RAM than today's mainstream computers, but they do fail occasionally.

 

[76ShovelHead]

PowerPC's are definitely worth it. I just got my eMac 1.2ghz, right after my Intel PC's Seagate hard drive died and its in for its second RMA, leaving this little eMac my main computer for at least a month, and i have no complaints.

 

[blunderboy]

It depends on what you need. If you don't need to use the latest applications and are comfortable using an older platform, then yes, do use a PPC. All my Macs were PPC up until this week, mostly because it was what I could buy. If you want to run the newest versions of certain applications, then you'll probably want to get an Intel Mac. A lot of developers (Apple themselves, Adobe, Microsoft, Google) are moving towards Intel-only apps, which might be harder for PPC users to deal with. It's annoying—many PPC Macs are well within their usable life and could conceivably run some of these apps—but it's the cycle of technology.

 

[mrsir2009]

Yeah, a powerful G4 machine would probably cut it for what I do

Even G3s can still serve a purpose, as long as they have a decent amount of RAM (1GB) and a decent speed I have a G3 iMac and a G3 iBook and they both work fine for gaming and writing.

....And I've also got a Mac Classic just for the novelty....

 

[tayloralmond]

I definitely believe that PPC Macs still have a purpose. I bought an iMac G4 off of PowerMax a couple months ago for $270 and bought a 500GB HDD and 2GB's of RAM and installed them myself. I actually use my iMac G4 as my primary desktop computer because it has everything I need for my everyday tasks. It's got:

OS X 10.5 (Can run most apps out there)
Bluetooth (I can use my Magic Mouse)
Airport Extreme (I don't need any ethernet cables)
USB 2.0 (I can sync up my iPhone, etc.)
500GB HDD (I can store all my music and files)
Superdrive DL (I can burn DVD's if I need to)

I've always loved the iMac G4's design, so as long as iTunes and a good internet browser are supported on my G4, I'm going to keep on using it. I don't edit video or play any intense games, so there's no real reason for me to ditch PPC (not to mention that I always have my MacBook Pro for games/Intel only apps ).

 

[Mike Macintosh]

Are they worth it, well thats a personal choice and it depends on what you need it to do, my Powerbook G4 has been with me for 5 years.

Although I have moved on to my iMac 27" i5 as my main computer, the PPC Powerbook G4 holds up as my laptop and I have no plans on replacing it with a Macbook anytime soon, it does all I want a laptop to do, surf the net, watch my DVD's, and be there to look up info on local attractions at my Hotel when I travel.

 

[Coldacre]

they're great to have around. I still play alot of games in the classic environment - can't do that on an Intel machine. my G3 450 DV is still running as strong as it did the day I bought 10 years ago. I've got 120g worth of ALAC files sitting on it - streaming to my Intel iMac.

 

[PowerGamerX]

I hate the forced obsoleteness of computers. This PowerBook has been my main machine since 2006, sure it shows a few minor signs of age (there's a little scuff on the apple on the lid and a scratch on the bottom) and sure it might not be a quad core, 8gb of ram, super-gameaholic machine. You know what though, I'm typing on it right now, it works well, it's very responsive. It's not like it takes 5 seconds to open Safari (just as fast as my friends MBP). Sure I avoid flash content when possible (I'll still watch YouTube occasionally), but for everything else I do, which includes MacRumors, Mail, iTunes, Pages, Skype, PhotoShop CS3, WoW, some Garage Band work and a few other little things here and there. It feels great. Even without the SSD that I had been using for the last year that just died (and just out of warranty )

Anyway, the average Joe or Mary isn't going to see the difference between Snow Leopard and Leopard. Snow Leopard mostly just cut out the legacy code needed for G4 and G5 processors.

Not to mention, the G4 and G5 era of Mac's are just filled with great design choices that you some of which you can't find today.

 

[mrsir2009]

About a week ago one of my friends wanted to throw out a iMac g5 (light sensor) so I took it. It wouldn't boot and apparently the owner thought of it as super old.

I took it apart, cleaned, replaced memory and installed Leopard.
Apart that video gets a bit laggy sometimes especially using youtube that thing is great.
Installed iTunes, loaded all stuff and i find it as a great email/surfing machine.
Also the speakers are doing great job so I'm happy with this free gift

Your in the sam boat as me! I got given a free iBook G3 from someone who thought it was useless because it was too old. Turns out to be a fine machine for writing and playing classic games

 

[drewdle]

I have to disagree with continuation of PPC just because the architecture is not only dead, but was also very inefficient and never got better, even in the G5. I do tech work for Mac clients and see quite a few people still hanging on to the PPC chips, but they don't cut it anymore. Anything on the web that uses flash version 8+ will cause CPU power to get anywhere from 65% to 90% just for some stupid add. Forget flash games, hulu, youtube or anything with HD content. If you're using 10.4, and don't bother with flash, then yes performance will be fine, because it was fine back in 2005 with 10.4 and a lot less intense flash/web 2.0 tricks.

Bottom line is, technology doubles practically every couple years, given that the most recent PPC computers are now at least 4 years old, that puts PPC WAY behind technology. I'm not saying that it doesn't have it's place, such as people who won't give up OS 9 (or even previous) and some of those who use really old software, 'cause it gets the job done,' but it's more worthwhile to invest in a newer intel machine. Plus anything from pre-2006 will be considered Obsolete/Vintage and won't be serviceable by Apple.

Most PC users buy a computer every 18 months. Apple's machine generally last 3-5+ years easy. But that doesn't mean the tech, or ability does.

Just my opinion.

Hate to bust your chops here, but let's go trough the list, one by one.

First: "PPC is very inefficient and never got better". Okay, let's talk efficiency. Do you know what the TDP on average for an Intel mobile chip (say Core2Duo class) is? 35 watts. Average PowerPC rating? Anywhere from 3.5 watts (my iBook 466Mhz) to around 10 watts. Also, Google comparisons of floating point operation between PowerPC and Intel chips of the same era. I'll wait.

Second: "Forget Flash games, Hulu, YouTube, anything with HD content". This is assuming that the measure of a computer is how well it handles the internet. I think most people have forgotten that a computer can do more than just be a portal to the nebulous nether-worlds. There are many ways to get YouTube on these machines other than just showing up on the site and expecting 720p content to play in the browser window. And on that topic, why do I need a high-definition video of a kid cracking his head on a half-pipe? Wasn't that already retarded in standard definition?

Third: "PPC computers are now at least 4 years old, that puts PPC WAY behind technology". Define technology. I define technology as a tool that helps accelerate work that I do that would otherwise be laborious. Judged by this definition, how is PPC "way behind"? The entire point of software and hardware development in a consumer driven society is to compel you to buy the new stuff, whether or not you actually need it. This is why Microsoft is wrestling the bear when it comes to Windows XP. That system hasn't come pre-loaded on any new computer for almost four years now, but 70% of the market is still running it, because for them, it still does everything they need it to. If Mac users were as resolute as their Windows brethren, Apple might not have been able to axe PowerPC support from Snow Leopard.

Fourth: "Anything from pre-2006 will be considered Obsolete/Vintage and won't be serviceable by Apple". Wrong again. Apple products are FULLY supported by Apple Authorized Service Centers for a full FIVE YEARS from date of build. They are then classified as "Vintage", and parts are still available for two more years. That's SEVEN years total, and only then do they get classified as Obsolete. Any tech that informs his/her customers that Apple won't support their machines within that seven year timeframe are lying hounds, and give the rest of us technicians who otherwise want to help our customers a bad name. It's one thing to suggest replacing a computer if repairs are more than what economically could be spent on a newer system, but it's another thing entirely to dismiss repair of a perfectly usable system simply because of it's age.

Fifth: "Most PC users buy a computer every 18 months. Apple's machine generally last 3-5+ years easy". So then why not use them for the full extent of their lifespan? Any technology is a poor investment, not just old computers. In fact, new machines are probably the worst thing to invest in. You will never, ever get the money back you spend on a brand new MacBook. However, the $100 I spent on my iMac G4 might come back to me if it still works in a few years and someone wants it for a collectible, and in the meantime, its been a perfectly usable computer.

Technology is only as obsolete as you make it. If everyone hung onto their computers for longer periods of time, they wouldn't become obsolete as fast because the powers that be (Apple, third parties) wouldn't have much choice but to support older machines since they represent a larger portion of their user base. That aside, if the computer is valuable to you as a tool, the investment is only as foolish as buying a computer five times more powerful than what you need in the first place.

 

[wesrk]

Technology is only as obsolete as you make it.

This.

I was playing around with an imac g4 last night and it handled everything pretty well, I was just checking my email, chatting and reading these forums for about three hours overall, but I never felt like I was using a dated computer. So, for some things it's still more than just good, for others not so much. So yeah, the comment in quotes holds.

 

[MacHamster68]

i hate the word obsolete
the industry will always make you think you absolutely need to buy new every year , for obvious reasons ..they want to make profits

and to give ppc users a bit of confidence back , it needs a bit of brain to get things working on ppc Mac's but its possible if you use that thing inside your head ,
i mean for a single mouse click on a youtube video to play it you do just not need much more brain then a ant ,
but for finding a way how to play that youtube video outside their website it needs brain , same for other "older apps" you can do the same as with newer app's , you just have to use that thing inside your head called brain for that

 

[666sheep]

From other side, thinking about PPC "obsolete, vintage" etc is giving lower prices to rest of us. I've expanded my collection with eMac 1.42 1GB RAM last days. I've paid equivalent of $65 including shipping

 

[MacHamster68]

ok thats the advantage as the brainless people get rid of their ppc Macs because they cant handle them any more the ppc Mac's are getting cheaper for the rest of humanity