Question for iMac G3 owners

[retta283]

I've been eyeing a G3 Mac again, after my PM had a meltdown a few years back. I had a question for any people who have some iMac G3s, how is the CRT?

When I ask this, I am mostly wondering how good the screen looks, especially after all this time. I know that some CRTs lose sharpness and color with age, budget ones went quicker. Have you found that text and images are more blurry than in the past?

 

[bobesch]

I've been eyeing a G3 Mac again, after my PM had a meltdown a few years back. I had a question for any people who have some iMac G3s, how is the CRT?
When I ask this, I am mostly wondering how good the screen looks, especially after all this time. I know that some CRTs lose sharpness and color with age, budget ones went quicker. Have you found that text and images are more blurry than in the past?

All of my iMacG3s have a clear and sharp picture and no distortion, nor blurred screen or fainted colors and they all look the same. - Except one (unfortunately that rare and fast 600MHz FlowerPower) with a greenish tainted screen. 😢
But I have no knowledge about before and after, since I've got my first ever G3 iMac about 4y ago. 800x600 is much clearer and better for the eyes than screens highest resolution - certainly because of the better frame rate - though I have to admit, that the LCD-Screens of the Clamshells and the other G4 books or the acrylic Cinema-Displays or the eMacs-CRT are sharper and brighter.
I like those G3 iMacs! So the CRT is how it is ... Wish the FireWire-models were equipped with TrayLoader-optical drives.
Sound is great - also after replacement of faulty speakers, that suffered from foam-rot.
I wouldn't go for a machine without FireWire!

 

[Project Alice]

I have four of them. They’re *okay*. Three of them are slot loaders, one Bondi tray loader. One of my slot loaders, a 400Mhz Ruby is pretty blurry compared to the other two slot loaders. The other two look fine. My tray loader is blurry at 1024x768 but looks okay at lower resolutions.
They aren’t great CRTs in the first place. iMacs back then were the cheap entry level everyday consumer machines.
They’re shadowmask, low resolution and low refresh rate even compared to run of the mill early 2000s CRTs.
But they’re okay, and get the job done.

 

[primarycolors]

I've got a Bondi Blue (tray model, produced first day of Rev. B). I don't have a reference of a brand new one to compare the picture to, but the picture looks pretty dang great.

 

[eyoungren]

The one I have seems to be sharp. But I've barely used it since it was gifted to me in 2015 or so. Consequently, it's not had a lot of power on time that might affect things.

 

[retta283]

I have four of them. They’re *okay*. Three of them are slot loaders, one Bondi tray loader. One of my slot loaders, a 400Mhz Ruby is pretty blurry compared to the other two slot loaders. The other two look fine. My tray loader is blurry at 1024x768 but looks okay at lower resolutions.
They aren’t great CRTs in the first place. iMacs back then were the cheap entry level everyday consumer machines.
They’re shadowmask, low resolution and low refresh rate even compared to run of the mill early 2000s CRTs.
But they’re okay, and get the job done.

I had figured that it was at best a mid-range display. I remember one of mine in the 2001-03 timespan did 2048x1536 res, but for gaming I used it lower than that. I think it was a 21" or 22".

Obviously I won't be doing any color-critical work on these things, so it's not vital. Text clarity is the biggest factor for me as my vision is poor, being almost 62 and dyslexic.

 

[repairedCheese]

I've been eyeing a G3 Mac again, after my PM had a meltdown a few years back. I had a question for any people who have some iMac G3s, how is the CRT?

When I ask this, I am mostly wondering how good the screen looks, especially after all this time. I know that some CRTs lose sharpness and color with age, budget ones went quicker. Have you found that text and images are more blurry than in the past?

Have you considered an eMac? They're effectively the old G3 iMac formfactor, CRT and everything, but offering a G4 instead. If you're looking for OS 9 support, you're going to want to stick with the older models, but you're still generally looking at a newer CRT. My 700mhz still looks extremely clear, and without a doubt it's one of my favorite computers.

 

[retta283]

Have you considered an eMac? They're effectively the old G3 iMac formfactor, CRT and everything, but offering a G4 instead. If you're looking for OS 9 support, you're going to want to stick with the older models, but you're still generally looking at a newer CRT. My 700mhz still looks extremely clear, and without a doubt it's one of my favorite computers.

I've considered eMacs, but I think I'd be more happy with a G3 for what I want to do. I'll be sure to look out for a good deal on one though, if there's a good deal I won't hesitate to go for eMac. Maybe G3 later, too.

 

[bunnspecial]

I'd consider an iMac G3 probably a high end shadow mask screen. It's pretty good for what it is, but that technology is inherently limited vs. aperture grilles. It really gets ugly/blurry if you try to run it at max res, but looks pretty good at lower res.

There's a reason why I like my Cube+ADC CRT for CRT use...

 

[Project Alice]

I had figured that it was at best a mid-range display. I remember one of mine in the 2001-03 timespan did 2048x1536 res, but for gaming I used it lower than that. I think it was a 21" or 22".

Obviously I won't be doing any color-critical work on these things, so it's not vital. Text clarity is the biggest factor for me as my vision is poor, being almost 62 and dyslexic.

Are you referring to CRT monitors in general? CRT iMacs only came in 15" and had a max resolution of 1024x768.
I actually have a 17" CRT studio display, and a 21" CRT studio display. Both of those are Trinitron derivatives, diamondtron I tihnk. They look massively better than the iMacs. The 21" supports high res like what you describe. I usually run mine at 1280x1024 as it looks better like that and at 85hz.

I've considered eMacs, but I think I'd be more happy with a G3 for what I want to do. I'll be sure to look out for a good deal on one though, if there's a good deal I won't hesitate to go for eMac. Maybe G3 later, too.

Honestly, I would go with an eMac if you can find one. An older one like the 700mhz or 800mhz, boot OS 9 with no trouble. The CRT is better, and the G4 is faster. Even the older games run like crap on G3 iMacs, unless you're thinking of even earlier games like the earlier 90s, anything that runs on a pre G3 powermac will run good obviously. But the Rage 128 that all the iMacs have was obsolete by the iMacs release and never should've been used by apple IMO.
I tried a few games on some of my G3s that on paper should've had no problem running, but would barely run and was just not enjoyable. My TiBook is my goto for those older games.

 

[retta283]

Are you referring to CRT monitors in general? CRT iMacs only came in 15" and had a max resolution of 1024x768.
I actually have a 17" CRT studio display, and a 21" CRT studio display. Both of those are Trinitron derivatives, diamondtron I tihnk. They look massively better than the iMacs. The 21" supports high res like what you describe. I usually run mine at 1280x1024 as it looks better like that and at 85hz.

Honestly, I would go with an eMac if you can find one. An older one like the 700mhz or 800mhz, boot OS 9 with no trouble. The CRT is better, and the G4 is faster. Even the older games run like crap on G3 iMacs, unless you're thinking of even earlier games like the earlier 90s, anything that runs on a pre G3 powermac will run good obviously. But the Rage 128 that all the iMacs have was obsolete by the iMacs release and never should've been used by apple IMO.
I tried a few games on some of my G3s that on paper should've had no problem running, but would barely run and was just not enjoyable. My TiBook is my goto for those older games.

Yes I was referring to CRTs in general. I owned quite a few of them over the years, I tried to hold onto them but ended up getting rid of a few when I moved, just not enough space.

The only games I play on older Macs are Civilization III and Europa Universalis II, I am not sure how well they would work. I know that they both can run or barebones spec, at least on Windows I was able to use a 1998 tower with onboard graphics for both of them. Anything else I'd run would either be from 1996 or earlier or just basic software.

 

[bunnspecial]

Civ III in OS 9 likes a fast-ish G3 and preferably a G4, and a decent GPU also.

It will run on lower spec hardware, but it's a lot more pleasant on faster stuff.

Most of my recent playing has either been on my 800mhz Cube with a Geforce 3, or a dual 1ghz Quicksilver with a Geforce 4Ti.

 

[Slix]

I have a whole bunch of iMac G3s, both models, and personally I don't have any major issue with the CRTs in any of them (with the exception of the Bondi Blue one that is near failing, making loud pop noises, scary! ). Like others have said, it's definitely not as good as a more modern CRT like the eMac or an LCD panel, of course, but if you are worrying about having headaches from the poor screen quality or something like that, it's probably unlikely to happen.

I grew up playing Bugdom and other early Mac OS 9 and early X games on our family's, and I think that's what these excel at most these days too.

 

[bunnspecial]

Like others have said, it's definitely not as good as a more modern CRT like the eMac

The issue isn't really age, it's the underlying technology.

The most common CRT construction, including a lot of TVs and most low to mid range desktop PC monitors, used something called a "shadow mask" which is a basically a plate with a bunch of tiny holes in it behind the phosphor surface to direct the electron beam on to discreet phospors.

Sony developed an alternatively construction called the aperture grill(brand name Sony Trinitron) that used fine wires directly behind the phosphors for the same purpose. Because each phosphor "dot" is smaller and more tightly spaced, aperture grille screens tend to be crisper and overall better looking for a given resolution setting. The major downside(aside from cost) is that they have two heavier gauge wires running through the center of the screen to support the rest, and this gives fine but noticeable lines.

The iMac and eMac both used shadow mask tubes. They were good quality shadow masks-better than would have been packaged in a $300 eMachines at the time-but still used what's usually considered an inferior technology.

In the G3/G4 era, Apple's aperture grill monitors-some with Sony Trinitron tubes and some with competing Mitsubishi Diamontrons-were branded with the "Studio Display" name. These in general are much higher quality monitors, and if you have one sitting next to an iMac or eMac(something I've done plenty of times) the difference is noticeable.

 

[bobesch]

Well, a lot of impressions, but there's nothing like to get one and try it out yourself ... 😃