But, here's how I see it from my perspective; I'm not a power user, and either machine would fit my needs. I could get a whole lot more computer with the PowerMac, but for almost twice as much as the eMac. When the $70 difference between the two is nearly two full days of worth of pay at my job, I would be more inclined to go with the eMac.
And, to actually pertain to the question of the thread, the eMac is probably around the same age as the G5, and the specs though different, aren't really too far off. I would say that the eMac is of better value for my money than the G5.
Am I looking at this the wrong way?
No, you make a good case. You still have options for a capable modern office suite. You can still do nearly everything on the internet. You've got good capable options for photo editing too. Just as important in terms of value is that you've got a good dependable machine.
I skipped the entire G5 line when it was new and still don't have much interest in paying money for them now--Especially if I really had to depend on it. I have one that was given to me recently. The PSU and video card had failed. I replaced the card and fixed the PSU. For the moment, it works well, but four of the eight ram slots are bad.
To put my mind to your original question, I imagined that something terrible had happened, that I had lost everything in a fire and the insurance company was only offering me pennies on the dollar to replace my computing equipment. The more I think about it, if I had a budget of say $200 to pick a computer to help me get back on my feet, I think it would have to be a G4 Sawtooth. I purchased mine new in 1999. I've made some upgrades along the way, but when something works hard for you every day for 14 years without giving you any trouble, it earns an enormous amount of trust. So, with $200, I'd probably get the best Sawtooth that I could find for $120 and spend the other $80 on a modern generic tablet. I could have a dependable G4 for my important stuff and the tablet would give me the most recent versions of Flash and Java.
If I had to give up my Intel Macs and use only PowerPC, the only places that I think I'd really feel the pinch is in HDR photography and video editing. But neither is something that I do for a living. They're just hobbies. Video editing is not even a hobby that I'm particularly good at, just one that I enjoy from time to time.
----------
something is wrong with your computer... maybe you shorted something out.
I can gladly show you how I use office 2008 on the mainscreen of the PB while outputting via HDMI a 720p movie. I have usually 4-5 tabs open at the same time, I can even run FB flashgames (though I have to admit I dont play anymore but still)
I ripped a DVD the other day while browsing at the same time and it worked fine so your advice seems out of place.
Catching up on this thread is making me giggle. I'm posting this on my 2003 MDD. I too have several tabs open. That's on my left display. On my right display, I'm working on some spreadsheets. I'm also encoding some movies for my iPod Touch to carry with me the rest of the week. Truth be told, that last part probably says less about my MDD and more about the hardware h.264 encoder that I have plugged in to the internal port of an NEC USB PCI card. That's probably why I have so much CPU left for doing other things. But that's the thing. We're mostly nerds here and we know how to get the most out of hardware, new or old.
Also, a decade just isn't as long as it used to be. You can get more out of a ten year old computer today than you could ten years ago. Did I word that right? You know what I mean. If you were using a 10 year old computer in 2003, you were using a 486, a 60MHz Pentium, a 68030, or a 68040. On the Mac side, those machines topped out at OS 7.6 or 8.1. You could still do some things, but not nearly as much relative to today with a 2003 computer. It's not that Moore's Law no longer applies, but the practical application of the additional power is becoming less and less meaningful from the user's perspective except when it comes to CPU/GPU intensive tasks like video editing, 3D modeling, and gaming.
The only 1993 machine that I was still using in 2003 was a PowerBook 160 and it was only used for one specific task. I had a WYSE emulator on it and I used it to interface with an old DOS database that my work was still using at the time. It was exactly perfect for that job too. It was less bulky and easier on the eyes than an actual WYSE terminal and had a great keyboard.
I'm not saying that a 10 year old G4 would be a good choice for the average computer user, but the average computer user often upgrades way more than is necessary. I have co-workers who upgrade to a new computer every 18 months just to ensure that they will continue to be able to post their baby pictures on FaceBook (as if there are not already enough baby pictures on the internet). They'll often ask my advice on such matters only to ignore the advice that I give. No, really, your hex core i7 will keep you on FaceBook for the foreseeable future. Then, a week later, they'll ask me to come over and set up their new computer. Whatever. It's their money and they can do what they want.
Don't get me wrong. I have newer computers too. But it's more than just a hobby or a sense of nostalgia that I still use my G4s. I still find them to be very useful and dependable. It would actually be more accurate to say that my MBP i7 Quad is my hobby machine. That's the machine that I use for my hobbies.
