This gets a little long...but this is going to cover options and G3 vs. G4 for a cheap model line computer.
Let me respond to three specific issues on G3 vs. G4: Cost, consumption, and overall performance.
I: Cost
Originally, when the PowerMac G4 first arrived at 500MHz with DVD-RAM Apple had it priced at $3500. Don't forget that you had a separate monitor to buy that would jack up the price to nearly $4000 or more, easily.
Even as Apple progressed to a dual processor 500MHz G4 the price was up to $3500 w/o a monitor. Apple did manage to jump a full 233MHz, the largest top-model update of a G4, up to April 2002. The new Macs supported no dual processor, but because of Apple's incredible speed increase, the use of Superdrive and the type of chip it was using, Apple had no choice but to maintain the prices of their Pro-line Macs at $3500. Apple's dual processor model only rose by 67MHz, while maintaining the same type of chip and the Superdrive.
To make matters worse, Apple's monitors now consisted of only LCD displays, with a low of $600 and a more common 17" at $1000. Apple only lowered the prices on their Pro-line PowerMacs because consumers were unwilling to pay $4500 for a high end computer system.
As for portables, the cheapest portable fast G4 you can get still is more than $2000. For a top of the line portable, people aren?t going to want to shell out $3000 just for a fast portable. And as for the conversion of Powerbook G3 to G4 the prices and speeds were the same, but over a time period. In that period, the prices of G3s must have dropped, because so were prices on G3 Powerbooks back then.
On the argument of the G3, Apple has overall kept the price of G3 components as low as possible, except for the Powerbook G3s, upon debut of each line of model. The prices of the iBooks maxed out at approx. $1800, and Apple never sold the iMacs beyond $1500, to the best of my knowledge. With the Apple iBooks Apple has managed to keep prices, again, below $1800 for their high end G3 portable.
Winner: G3
II: Consumption
If Apple were to make a low end computer, Apple would have to use the cheap, low power 7400 or 7410 chips Apple used to use in their PowerMacs up to AGP Graphics. The 7450 chips Apple used in their old Macs provided a conformable amount of energy.
However, in a much noticed argument about the Rev. A and B Powerbook G4s the 7400 and 7410 chip, respectively, throws off a tremendous amount of heat, resulting in either melted internal circuitry, or other damage.
On a personal note, my father told me that Apple attempted to make a leather case G4 for the Powerbook, but the case melted.
In supporting the G3, Apple has even kept complaints about a fast G3 to a minimum. Apple even went as far as removing the fans from their early G3 CRT iMacs, because the computer was kept from being so hot.
Again, on a personal note, I have the iBook Firewire 466MHz. Even after 100 minutes of watching a DVD the iBook stays moderately warm, but not overly hot. If it were, the bed cushions I was watching the movie on would have caught fire, or would have started burning.
Winner: G3
III: Overall Performance
What really affects performance among the G3 and G4 families is the operating system and the system bus.
Mac OS X is a prime example on how the system software affects the chip performance. When Apple came out with their G3 at even 450MHz and compared that to tests with a G4 at around the same speeds, there was little difference, because of the way the operating system handled G4s. The operating system was OS 9, and it worked as a 32 or 64-bit processor integrator as a software and computer operation package. Also, under OS 9, dual processors only managed to work 3% faster than a single processor, because OS 9 failed to integrate instructions among the processors. Now, since OS X comes installed on all of Apple's new computers, OS X can take advantage of the G4 Velocity engine AND dual processors. However, since dual processors completely take away the purpose of a cheap computer, we will use just one chip.
Finally, tests with many other applications show the integration of the velocity engine. Photoshop, most 3D programs, and iTunes have support for the G4 V. Engine.
However, in argument for the G3, a supermajority of current Applications do not support the Velocity Engine. And without that, the G4 would have the same processing power as a G3
Winner: Tie.
On the basis of three arguments, we see that the G3 seems to have a better advantage over the G4 on price and on energy consumption. Speed is rather important, but having a low-end model for the consumer and education market is better.
As for options, there are other things in a computer that would drop the price of it dramatically.
(1) Optical drive. A simple 24x CD-ROM or slow CD-RW will do fine.
(2) RAM. Apply at least 256MB into this model.
(3) Hard Drive. For a desktop computer a 20GB should be more than enough. (I have a 30GB Hard Drive and after lots of image editing and large files downloading, I still have 23GB left.
(4) Monitor. Since the prices of LCD monitors are extremely high, along with the fact that you can find 17? CRTs for less than $200 a 17? Flat CRT will do very well.
(5) Style. I would not be the one to judge exactly how the style of this low-end computer should be designed. I would suggest that for ease of use, an all-in-one with a bottom base and a top monitor will be acceptable.
(6) Bus speed. I suggest a minimum of 133MHz.
(7) Processor speed. Apple?s prices on G3s are cheaper than the G4, as previously discussed. I suggest that Apple inserts the fastest G3 available, possibly, 800MHz.
There are probably more options for computers and styles than I can list. But, currently, this is how I feel Apple should go about making a computer to fit these categories. And upon the basis of a fast G3 Apple will not only keep their low-end design at low cost, but also to maintain the maximum efficiency of their processor.
I would like to cite Page, Ian for his program Mactracker, and an old issue of MacZone, to use as a reference for this post.
________________
In the time it takes to read this message, an Apple computer will already have performed 15 billion float-point operations more than a consumer PC.
