[Q80]

I'm about to buy one off ebay.
If i put more ram in(2-4 gig), new Hd, should that be good enough to be useable.

[Lateralus]

...useable?

Maybe I've time warped or something, but the Power Mac G5s aren't that old, are still very capable, and still cost a pretty penny to buy.

So unless you're considering running a NASA operation on your machine, I don't see why you'd think a G5 would be incapable enough to require doing something to make it useable.

[nonhuman]

Yeah, no problem. I'm still using my PowerMac G5 (dual 2.0 GHz) as my main computer. I've had it since it was brand new, four years ago or so, and I still don't feel that I've hit it's limitations.

[iREZ]

i use a dual 2.0 with 2.5gb of ram at work and its still a champ

[nikstar101]

As everyone has said above they are still capable machines, although they are starting to show their age when it comes to 3D stuff, main because graphics technology has moved on. But for an everyday work horse that isn't needed for high end super time critical stuff a G5 2+ GB RAM and 500Gbs + HD and you should be away.

I would also suggest an ATI Radeon X800XT Mac (if it is an older AGP version) as they can push the graphics a bit harder.

Nik

[Leonard]

The only problem with the AGP Power Mac G5's is that it's hard to find a high-end graphics card for them nowadays - glad I bought mine when I did. ATI seems to not be making many of the Mac version of the Radeon X800XT. I've seen quite a few people looking for or waiting for one. Recently OWC has had the Radeon X800XT in stock. Mine's delegated to running BOINC, sharing files and downloading files - I don't use it as much these days. Still a good workhorse.

[Veltliner]

I would say it depends what software you want to run on it.

Current Mac software is universal binary, but I wonder: is it more suited for intel and just ALSO RUNS under PPC? Or does it run on both type of machines equally well?

[nikstar101]

Originally Posted by Veltliner 

I would say it depends what software you want to run on it.

Current Mac software is universal binary, but I wonder: is it more suited for intel and just ALSO RUNS under PPC? Or does it run on both type of machines equally well?

I have been wondering the same thing actually. Especally with Apple's software where it would help their cause if their new computers ran the same software faster than the old.

Nik

[Big Mac]

Universal Binaries are compiled for both architectures, and there's no bias involved.

[Leonard]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Universal Binaries are compiled for both architectures, and there's no bias involved.

By no bias, do you mean there is no optimization for either architecture or there is optimization for both architectures? A person could read that either way.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Leonard 

By no bias, do you mean there is no optimization for either architecture or there is optimization for both architectures? A person could read that either way.

I don't really know what flags XCode uses for compilation, but I imagine both will be optimized. I suppose it's theoretically possible that Apple could have set it so that the Intel binary will be compiled with more optimization than the PPC binary, but not only would that be stupid, it would take very little time for programmers to realize that it was happening and call them out on it.

[Q80]

quick question.
it comes with 4 sticks of 512 mb ram, is tehre any need to upgrade for music production and recording vocals. total 3 gig will cost $170more, total 4 gig ram will cost $370 more

[nonhuman]

My general recommendation for RAM (I work in IT, and have to deal with underpowered machines all the time) is that you want at least 1 GB of RAM to run OS X. If you want to run Office 2004 on an Intel machine, then it's best that you have at least 2 GB.

Since you're talking about a PPC machine and will have 2 GB to start with, you'll probably be ok. That said, more RAM is always better. As a general rule it's usually a good idea to get as much RAM as you can afford easily (don't strain yourself to max out your RAM though, the guidelines above are generally pretty good). That said, if you're paying $170 for another GB or $370 for another two, you're severely overpaying. Check out ramseeker to find the best deals on RAM. It'll help you find the best deals for your specific model of computer. Crucial is generally considered to be some of the highest quality RAM out there, but it can also get pretty pricy. I usually go with Other World Computing as a mid-range, or 1-800-4-MEMORY if I want to save a few more bucks, and I've never had a problem with RAM from either company.

[Q80]

[QUOTE=nonhuman;3505288][QUOTE]
thanks for all the info. much appreciated

[dimmer]

I'd keep in mind that the PPC is a dead end (as far as Apple cares) -- you might well do better with an Intel based iMac / MacBook or even a Mac Mini. If for nothing else, you'll get much better resale value on the system when you come to eBay it yourself. If you have some PPC only software that you have to run, of course it's a moot question, but what kind of $ are you thinking of spending on the G5? GCC does a decent job of compiling for both architectures, but the underlying Intel CPU will happily kick the snot out of a PPC at the same clock rate (especially with apps that don't use Altivec). If you have a G5 today, it'll work fine for a while, but I wouldn't invest much money in one that I didn't already own.

Can you tell us more about the audio work you'll be doing? We can pretty much toss graphics performance out of the equation, but that definition covers a multitude of sins.

[Q80]

Originally Posted by dimmer 

Can you tell us more about the audio work you'll be doing? We can pretty much toss graphics performance out of the equation, but that definition covers a multitude of sins.

makin beats in reason or logic 7 and recording vocals.
using vsts and samples.
nothing that hogs resources too much

just picked up a g5, 250gig, 2 gig ram cleaner up for $900AUD

[Todd Madson]

Ah. Q80 - I'm a longtime music producer and my G5 2.5 dual is my workhorse.

Currently I'm running 3.5 gigs of ram, 1.2 TB of disc and generally don't record to
my boot drive. I've got a 200 gig boot drive (should swap for a 400 or so) and then
I have a 500 gig recording drive.

I've been running 80-120 tracks depending on the kind of production I'm doing -
generally I start running out of ideas at 90 tracks. The biggest issue is that once
I get beyond 25-30 softsynths I start running out of ram memory. Especially the
ones with large ROM libraries.

That being said, I've found it terrifically hard to make it "hit the wall". The biggest
project I worked on was excessively large and the cpu was essentially saying to
me "is that all you got?" The limitation in my case is ram so I'd recommend
swapping all of the 512 meg sticks with 1 gig sticks eventually.

If I expand mine to 6-8 gigs I'd find no real limit to the machine except in the
case of very large digital sampling libraries - I tend to get into more pure synthesis
than sampling so it's not as big a problem. But primarily being a guitar player I've
found no problems running 30-40 tracks of guitar at once excessive as it is.

If I had to do the Def Leppard 120 tracks of backing vocals, maybe I'd run into
some requirements for bouncing. Logic is pretty robust and doesn't hog the CPU
like some other DAW apps of my acquaintance.

[Todd Madson]

Oh. One more thing: my only real long-term concern is that my current setup is one
of the liquid cooled G5 machines. I've already had one meltdown that destroyed the
computer in essence. I highly recommend Applecare because if the power supply
blows it will take out the motherboard and the cpus too. Just an FYI what happened
to me. At some point I'll have to go MacPro whether I want to or not but I'll probably
go the refurb route + applecare. It's pretty wise if you want your studio to keep running.

That Applecare literally saved me $3500 in repair costs.