> My MDD pulls 155-170 watts (monitor off) just twiddling it's
> thumbs. It is _massively_ hot.
That's pretty high, even for a wind tunnel Mac. My dual 1.8GHz MDD (using
an aftermarket Sonnet G4 card) pulls around 140, but it is usually in OS 9,
so OS X might flog it harder. The G4 card also has its own fan, so core
temperatures stay much more reasonable.
> I've thought, and researched both of these for several years, but
> my software is all PPC.
> I also have a philosophical and moral objection to Intel_ and I
> recognize the G5, as I did when it came out as one of, if not the
> best cases for cooling, quietness, and form of all time.
I certainly empathize with your position. I never cared for the x86 ISA,
and even though Core is significantly different than NetBurst, I find the
instruction set inelegant. That said, Intel has certainly put big dollars
on making the hippo dance, and while it isn't pretty, it certainly does.
The G5 would not have been practical without the cheese-grater case. It
still manages to look good despite the odd appearance.
> Agreed. The G4 CPU is good but hamstrung as a dual on this
> motherboard and the video is just barely capable.
The problem with the G4 is the bus, not necessarily the CPU -- as CPUs go,
I think the G4 is a better design than the G5. However, the G4 is seriously
impaired by the FSB -- the G5 can trounce it simply by sucking more data
down. I think this is best proven by the low end G5s, which were not
significantly faster than the G4s they replaced except for tasks that
required an immense amount of throughput.
> Thanks, Stephen. I am leaning towards a single CPU G5.
I would strongly recommend against this. The single CPU G5s will not offer
enough of a performance advantage over the G4 to be worth it, and their
reliability track record is significantly worse than the later models:
http://www.macintouch.com/reliability/pmg5.html
The original 1.6 in particular has dismal numbers, and both revisions of the
single 1.8 are better but still below average.
The two G5s to get are either the air-cooled dual 2.3 (the first one), or
the quad, which has better performance and reliability numbers than any other
liquid-cooled unit. If you are concerned about the reliability of the LCS and
need PCI, get the dual 2.3.
> Right, but I've also read lots of cursing concerning the use of OS 9
> emulators on Intel machines.
SheepShaver is a poor replacement for Classic. This is not supposed to be
an implication that I dislike SS, or that it serves no purpose; SS is a
decent choice for casual use of undemanding applications, and the only choice
on Intel. However, it has many gaps in its emulation that will cause
applications not to run or randomly freeze, and it does not integrate with
OS X anywhere near as well as Classic does. There is no substitute for
Classic, and even Classic is not a full substitute for a Mac that can boot
OS 9, but since you have a 9600 the G5 in Classic will do just fine.
--
------------------------------------ personal: http://www.cameronkaiser.com/ --
Cameron Kaiser * Floodgap Systems * www.floodgap.com * ckai...@floodgap.com
-- Eight out of ten voices in my head say, "don't shoot!" ---------------------
--
You received this message because you are a member of G-Group, a group for
those using G3, G4, and G5 desktop Macs - with a particular focus on Power Macs.
The list FAQ is at http://lowendmac.com/lists/g-list.shtml and our netiquette
guide is at http://www.lowendmac.com/lists/netiquette.shtml
To post to this group, send email to g3-5-list@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/g3-5-list
