[goncaloproenca]

Hi there,

I own and owned my fair share of mac's - currently I have an intel Mac Mini as a media center, my wife has a MBP, I have as a desktop a MacPRO Xeon and have a MacAir myself...

My parents, as usual, keep bugging me to fix their computer - Windows.

So I ran into a store that is selling Powermac G5's CHEAP, I mean dirty cheap.

But its the 1,8 ghz, G5 version.

I was planning to buy them a MacMini so I can VNC from home and fix any problem or explain any issue but this PM G5 got me wondering...

Is it ok for normal usage ?

this is what they use it for :

Word
Powerpoint
Flash based games ( dont even ask why... my mom loves it )
Email
Internet Browing

Very light stuff that a G4 can do I know... the thing is :

I had my old and trusty Powerbook G4 1.0ghz there and my Mom found it DEAD slow.... so she stopped using it.

Its an online store so returning the Powermac is a nono... Is the speed of a PowerMac G5, but Macmini C2D standards, too slow ?

I know they would be super fine and happy with a MacMini ( intel ) but can a Powermac suffice ? Is it much slower than a Mac Mini 1.8 ghz core duo intel for example ?

[macaddict0001]

I think the mac mini form factor makes a lot more sense if you don't need the expansion a tower offers. Hard to say what is "good enough" for a particular user though. What did the windows machine have in it, and was it fast enough?

[olePigeon]

I'd give them the mini just so you have a common platform, otherwise at some point you're going to have to explain to your parents why they can't run a program because it isn't a Universal Binary. Your mom will slap you and your dad says he'll call Buzz Aldrin to confirm.

[goncaloproenca]

Well thanks for the answers ; The old Windows machine had a pre-coreDuo Intel cpu, around 1.80 ghz or so, 2gb of ram, etc etc and its more than ok ; My mother is always complaining about the virus ( common... ) and that its a fuss that she has to backup everything to the external hard drive manually...

Therefore the macintosh comes to the rescue with no virues and with TimeMachine...

My main problem is that a used Mac Mini 1.8ghz or so here in Europe cost around 400 euros... for a decent one. This PowerMac is 160 euros... that is a LOT less than the MacMini...

Yes I know that I might get slaped by my Mom, even I'm way past the 35 and that my father can call Buzz Aldrin to check what a universal binary is ( thanks Ole, for a VERY LONG TIME I didnt laugh so hard reading something that someone replied to me ) but....

For 80 euros less I can buy two Powermac's G5 ( Im planning to buy one to use as a file server ) and give one to my parents... or I really should wait and get a MacMini ?

[mduell]

Refurb Mac mini. PPC support is dead and gone.

[reader50]

If it's a dual 1.8 G5, it may be fine for them. I'd avoid a single-core G5 because if Flash and TM run at the same time, her Flash game will get slow. Otherwise, it doesn't sound like they need the latest & greatest software.

[Doc HM]

Mac mini, all day and night.

I have a dual 2.5 G5 as a server with 2.5GB of ram and 2TB of internal drives running 10.5 and it struggles with flash, although it does do everything else pretty well. It's old tech though and if it was used even for web and mail in addition to serving I would swap it out for a mini.

Your mum will just get used to it in time for it to fall off the edge of the internet. You will be forever giving her excuses as to why it suddenly won't do this or that.

Get the mini.

[Big Mac]

I say a 1.8 G5 (must be dual) would be fine unless your mom demands HD youtube. G5s are very capable and fast at most things, regardless of what PPC bashers have to say.

[macaddict0001]

If I could get a PM G5 for less than half the price of a mini I would be all over that.

[OreoCookie]

An Intel-based Mac mini will be substantially faster and it is also smaller and less noisy. I'd recommend that over a G5 even if the G5 is cheaper.

[Lateralus]

Personally I'd rather have a late-model Dual G4 than a single G5. And now that Snow Leopard has taken the field, both platforms will be equally antiquated from a new-software-development point of view, but the Dual G4 would be a bit peppier.

[Abit667]

I just went from a Dual G5 1.8 to a current model Mac Mini 2.26. Overall, the mini isn't that much faster than the G5 for every day tasks. It runs flash a lot better in some cases, however still cannot properly play 720p youtube videos for instance (which is absolutely retarded). Performance is better overall, however the G5 was fine for the light use you mentioned your parents would be doing. Also the stock HD in the mini is incredibly slow, IO will be much quicker on the G5 assuming its got a somewhat decent disk.

The G5 gets loud, especially if you're doing something which really kills it like Flash, and dumps out tons of heat. The mini is silent and hardly even gets warm. If things like that matter to you, get the mini. Otherwise I'd say the G5 is probably the better choice.

[Lateralus]

Edit - Nevermind

[l008com]

Another vote for Mac mini.
A base model mac mini will smoke a G5. Much more horsepower, much better graphics. You can keep the mini up to date software wise. The G5 is already outdated. The mac mini uses about 14 watts of electricity. The G5 probably uses 150 or so. The only things that G5's still really excel at are things like web hosting and some other servery things. As a desktop, they're just too slow. A mac mini will plow through all those flash games with ease.

[Big Mac]

The G5 is the greatest Mac line ever. I will hear nothing else.

For the record, though, G5s are quite capable of 95% of Mac tasks even today. And moreover, my G5 has a better GPU than any Mac mini.

[Lateralus]

Originally Posted by l008com 

A base model mac mini will smoke a G5.

Be realistic - a Mini will be marginally faster across the board, but still in the same performance realm.

...much better graphics.

Please tell me this is your attempt at humor.

The mac mini uses about 14 watts of electricity.

Doing what? Resting at absolute idle - I'm not sure that's a good way to measure a machine's electrical appetite. And its idle draw is only that low because the Mini is essentially a headless notebook.

At load, the thing still uses 110w.

(Note: I'm not saying this puts the Mini anywhere near G5 territory, just making a point.)

The only things that G5's still really excel at are things like web hosting and some other servery things. As a desktop, they're just too slow.

A 64bit-anything in the 2GHz and up range, especially when available in up to quad-core configuration, is adequate for practically anything that falls into the realm of 'desktop computing'. From what year are you posting?

A mac mini will plow through all those flash games with ease.

Which has nothing to do with the G5 as a chip, and everything to do with Adobe's inadequate optimization of Flash for the platform.

[macaddict0001]

The numbers may be wrong but the theory isn't, a G5 is going to use nearly 4 times the power, no matter what it's doing. And the heat output will be proportional as well.

[l008com]

You underestimate the mini AND overestimate the G5. Lets start at power, my mini uses about 20-30 watts during normal use. My old G5 was a little space heater. I don't know how much it used, but I know my G4's used about 150 watts during normal use, and the G5 used a LOT more than that. Speed wise, G5's are sloooow. 64-bit won't get you very far on a G5 when the only apps that will run in 64-bit mode are Apache and MySQL.
And graphics... No i'm not joking, are you? You think a 5 year old midrange graphics card from a G5 will be better than the current integrated model? My 9400m is on par with my Mac Pro's GPU, nevermind a G5's GPU.

[reader50]

I have a G5 Quad with the 1,000W PSU. Measured draw is 150W at idle, ~300W with all four cores maxed out. Dual hard drives and a GeForce 7800 GT.

Regarding graphics, try this Graphics Card Hierarchy Chart. The integrated graphics have pitiful performance compared to discreet. The best Intel integrated listed (GMA X4500) is comparable to a Radeon 8500 from yesteryear. I've still got one of those in my Sawtooth.

[Lateralus]

Originally Posted by l008com 

You underestimate the mini AND overestimate the G5. Lets start at power, my mini uses about 20-30 watts during normal use. My old G5 was a little space heater. I don't know how much it used, but I know my G4's used about 150 watts during normal use, and the G5 used a LOT more than that. Speed wise, G5's are sloooow. 64-bit won't get you very far on a G5 when the only apps that will run in 64-bit mode are Apache and MySQL.
And graphics... No i'm not joking, are you? You think a 5 year old midrange graphics card from a G5 will be better than the current integrated model? My 9400m is on par with my Mac Pro's GPU, nevermind a G5's GPU.

Refer to reader's post.

Please don't pluck stats out of thin air.

[SierraDragon]

Mini.
Old platforms tend to have "issues" as OS/apps evolve. And even though solid state ages relatively well old hardware does become more likely to fail as it ages.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by reader50 

I have a G5 Quad with the 1,000W PSU. Measured draw is 150W at idle, ~300W with all four cores maxed out. Dual hard drives and a GeForce 7800 GT.

Regarding graphics, try this Graphics Card Hierarchy Chart. The integrated graphics have pitiful performance compared to discreet. The best Intel integrated listed (GMA X4500) is comparable to a Radeon 8500 from yesteryear. I've still got one of those in my Sawtooth.

Quoted for awesomeness. PPC4EVER!!!

[l008com]

Worth noting, reader50 is talking about the most top of the line G5 tower ever made. But very few people had quad G5s. And the G5 this topic is about is either a single or dual 1.8 Ghz G5. Which also came with GeForce FX 5200 Ultra cards. Even according to reader50's GPU chart, the 9400m is well above the 5200.

So I will agree that a super high end 4x2.5 GHz G5 may be on par with, not significantly worse than a current generation Mac mini. But one of the common models, a dual 1.8 or 2.0 . . . forgetaboutit.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

The G5 is the greatest Mac line ever. I will hear nothing else.

And I'd agree. However, the G5 was introduced in summer of 2003. Now, we have 2010.

The best platform agnostic cpu benchmark are the spec benchmarks. Even though no benchmark is perfect, they give some indication on the difference in speed. A G5 at 1.8

Dell Precision Workstation M90 (2.33 GHz Core 2 Duo, T7600) taken from here and here:
specint base 2455
specfp base 2294

PowerPC 970 aka G5 @ 2.2 GHz taken from here
specint 1040
specfp 1241

Note that this G5 probably runs at a higher clockspeed than the one in the G5 the OP is interested in. Furthermore, a Core 2 Duo has two cores so if the G5 is a single-core, single-cpu G5, it'll be significantly slower than a Mac mini -- at least cpu-wise.

All the talk about graphics cards is IMO irrelevant in the present context: the OP wants a computer for his parents. Unless they're into a lot of gaming, I doubt they'd notice the difference in graphics speed. nVidia's 9400M is more than good enough for browsing, writing e-mails and letters to friends and family.

Sure, there are other factors that determine the speed of a system (harddrive speed, RAM, etc.), but for this particular scenario, the OP is much better off getting a Mac mini for his parents.

[Big Mac]

SPEC scores have always been x86 biased, FWIW.

If the OP can get a hold of a cheap dual processor or dual core G5, they're still great Macs and still very fast. It doesn't make sense to spend that much on them, but it's just technological snobbery to denigrate perfectly good hardware that's more than fast enough for most things even today, simply because Apple abandoned the PPC for Intel.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

SPEC scores have always been x86 biased, FWIW.

No, not really, there is no bias.
It's that a lot of money and time goes into the development of x86-based cpus and compilers. That's not a bias. Personally, I'm afraid of other, perfectly viably architectures dying because they're not main stream. It has happened to the Alpha cpu which was arguably the most advanced cpu at its time -- killed by Intel to be `superseded' by the Itanic (Must have been history's bitter sense of humor.)

If you have a look at POWER cpus, their spec scores are very, very good when they're released, easily besting what is on the market. Plus, for workstation/big iron cpus, raw cpu performance is just one piece of the puzzle. Scalability, throughput, reliability, accessibility, serviceability are other factors. And if you put things into perspective, the G5s fare quite well -- for computers that are seven years old. However, the machine is seven years old.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

If the OP can get a hold of a cheap dual processor or dual core G5, they're still great Macs and still very fast. It doesn't make sense to spend that much on them, but it's just technological snobbery to denigrate perfectly good hardware that's more than fast enough for most things even today, simply because Apple abandoned the PPC for Intel.

If you happen to have a G5 and you're satisfied with its performance, I wouldn't see a reason to upgrade either. But if you want to invest money into a `new' machine, you should get what gives you the best bang for the buck.

[sek929]

Why is everybody listing stats for a Dual 2GHZ G5? Completely irrelevant as the OP is talking about a single 1.8GHZ G5.

The Mini wins, hands-down. Having a tower is nice for expandability, but IMHO you'd be stupid to buy a 1.8 G5 just to function as a parent computer. Maybe some professionals would still have lots of uses for a G5 tower, but I doubt your parents will.

[l008com]

In my experience, most "professionals" stick with towers just because thats the outdated common wisdom, that you need a high end Mac to use photoshop. They don't realize how far computers have come, and how even the bottom of the barrel Mac will smoke the high end of just a few years ago. But yeah if the G5 in question is a single, ugh. Mini mini mini a million times over.

[sek929]

I agree somewhat, but Pros do need things like the expandability a tower with open slots provides...Plus, if your bread and butter is PS work, every second you can shave off of render times and whatnot means more money in your pocket.

If the parents main use will be the web they need a newer Intel processor, we might not like that Flash is hideously resource-hungry, but that's the way the web works and if you want a pleasant browsing experience PPC just can't compete.

Even on my iMac I can barely watch 720p Youtube videos, while 1080p Apple trailers play liquid smooth.