Thread
Which new Mac is the right one for me?
I have no experience with newer Macs whatsoever. I have a Rev A iMac, but believe it's not enough to play modern, games that where available for the Mac OS 9. So here is my wishlist:
Any models in particular i should consider?
- should be as silent as possible
- should be able to play all games that came out, even later ones, within reason though, i don't need the highest settings
- should be available at ebay for a tiny amount of money
- I don't mind the size, but i have a 19 inch LCD, so no builtin display.
- not a monster when it comes to energy
- TP fast ethernet is a must, so are USB2 connectors
Any models in particular i should consider?
Macs tend to "hold their value really well" -- so to be honest, unless you are specifically yearning for an early 2000s dead-end UNIX workstation that uses a lot of electricity and is extremely good at very specific tasks nobody wants to do anymore (aka the PowerMac G5) then my recommendation is honestly to take a very good and serious look at a brand new Mac Mini: http://www.apple.com/mac-mini/
I've got the model one generation behind with a Sandy Bridge processor, it plays many modern games on reasonable settings, and in the year or so I've had it, it has a) never been turned off longer than it takes to install more ram B) never made audible noise, save for when I'm really pushing it by playing a game or running some folding.
If you're looking for Mac OS 9 gaming (I wasn't completely sure based on your wording) I would get a fast, single-processor PowerMac G4 and put a GeFORCE 4 or 4600 TI in it.
Most (all) games on Mac OS 9 will not take advantage of dual processors, (or even that much ram) and to be honest, if you have the physical space available and want to run both Mac OS X and Mac OS 9, I would do it on two physical computers, if for no other reaosn than to make management of the operating system and disks easier. As an incidental benefit, you wouldn't need to turn one off in order to use the other.
On the OS 9 front, something like this would be perfect, if you could verify that it does not have a Firewire 800 port. (Do not buy an FW800 G4 with intent to convert it, you end up replacing most of the machine and creating more work for yourself in the process.)
Do not bother with the mini or any of the PowerBooks on the OS 9 front, The TiBook@1000 was good in 2003, and stopped being good mid-way through 2005 (and that's being kind to it) and the G4 mini shipped with an extremely similar graphics card. The very fastest eMac fared a bit better with a 128MB Radeon 9600, but it did not run Mac OS 9.
In general though, unless you really do specifically need Mac OS 9, then the mac mini meets your requirements almost exactly, and maybe some 2009 ones with the Penryn Core2 processors and the GeFORCE 9400M IGP are available cheap. (And also $600usd for the current mini is to be honest a fairly good deal if you consider that you're getting Mac OS X, almost enough ram for Mac OS X, and the whole package fits in some cargo pant pockets and uses something like 20 watts at full tilt.)
I've got the model one generation behind with a Sandy Bridge processor, it plays many modern games on reasonable settings, and in the year or so I've had it, it has a) never been turned off longer than it takes to install more ram B) never made audible noise, save for when I'm really pushing it by playing a game or running some folding.
If you're looking for Mac OS 9 gaming (I wasn't completely sure based on your wording) I would get a fast, single-processor PowerMac G4 and put a GeFORCE 4 or 4600 TI in it.
Most (all) games on Mac OS 9 will not take advantage of dual processors, (or even that much ram) and to be honest, if you have the physical space available and want to run both Mac OS X and Mac OS 9, I would do it on two physical computers, if for no other reaosn than to make management of the operating system and disks easier. As an incidental benefit, you wouldn't need to turn one off in order to use the other.
On the OS 9 front, something like this would be perfect, if you could verify that it does not have a Firewire 800 port. (Do not buy an FW800 G4 with intent to convert it, you end up replacing most of the machine and creating more work for yourself in the process.)
Do not bother with the mini or any of the PowerBooks on the OS 9 front, The TiBook@1000 was good in 2003, and stopped being good mid-way through 2005 (and that's being kind to it) and the G4 mini shipped with an extremely similar graphics card. The very fastest eMac fared a bit better with a 128MB Radeon 9600, but it did not run Mac OS 9.
In general though, unless you really do specifically need Mac OS 9, then the mac mini meets your requirements almost exactly, and maybe some 2009 ones with the Penryn Core2 processors and the GeFORCE 9400M IGP are available cheap. (And also $600usd for the current mini is to be honest a fairly good deal if you consider that you're getting Mac OS X, almost enough ram for Mac OS X, and the whole package fits in some cargo pant pockets and uses something like 20 watts at full tilt.)
In before "the mini is so expensive compared to equivalent PCs..." (it happens from time to time.)
Here is the only equivalent PC I've been able to find: http://www.lenovo.com/products/us/desktop/thinkcentre/tiny-form-factor/
Everything else is far larger and uses far more electricity. (In fact, even this particular machine needs an outboard power supply.)
There's this: http://www.dell.com/us/soho/p/optiplex-7010/pd -- but it's far larger and uses a lot more electricity than either the Lenovo Tiny or the Mac mini. (Although it seems to be using all desktop parts)
HP has one too, but it's not that great either: http://shopping1.hp.com/is-bin/INTERSHOP.enfinity/WFS/WW-USSMBPublicStore-Site/en_US/-/USD/ViewStandardCatalog-Browse?CatalogCategoryID=TDAQ7hab63cAAAE7IeweMhoS -- this one is using laptop parts again, but at a base cost higher than the mini.
(I mean they're all reasonably nice computers, but you spend a lot of money to get something with the computing power the mini has, and you're not getting quite as nice an overall package anyway.)
Here is the only equivalent PC I've been able to find: http://www.lenovo.com/products/us/desktop/thinkcentre/tiny-form-factor/
Everything else is far larger and uses far more electricity. (In fact, even this particular machine needs an outboard power supply.)
There's this: http://www.dell.com/us/soho/p/optiplex-7010/pd -- but it's far larger and uses a lot more electricity than either the Lenovo Tiny or the Mac mini. (Although it seems to be using all desktop parts)
HP has one too, but it's not that great either: http://shopping1.hp.com/is-bin/INTERSHOP.enfinity/WFS/WW-USSMBPublicStore-Site/en_US/-/USD/ViewStandardCatalog-Browse?CatalogCategoryID=TDAQ7hab63cAAAE7IeweMhoS -- this one is using laptop parts again, but at a base cost higher than the mini.
(I mean they're all reasonably nice computers, but you spend a lot of money to get something with the computing power the mini has, and you're not getting quite as nice an overall package anyway.)
For OS 9, I think a QuickSilver or non-FW800 MDD G4 would suit you fine.
I plan to use it for OS 9 gaming only. And i plan to get at least two, maybe even three. They would be put into storage when tricked out, to ripen for a decade or two.
The MDD G4 seems to be the droid i am looking for.
Would you say it's a particularly loud computer under load? I don't mind a bit of noise, but not like a vacuum. How is it's power consumption while idle?
The MDD G4 seems to be the droid i am looking for.
Would you say it's a particularly loud computer under load? I don't mind a bit of noise, but not like a vacuum. How is it's power consumption while idle?
The only MDD I ever had (the 1.42GHz dual processor model) was pretty loud, louder in fact than either of the G5 towers here. I never measured the power consumption.
The MDDs are all pretty loud. The Quicksilver is a lot quieter. I'd think that the 933mhz or dual 1ghz would be fast enough for any OS 9 game. It also shouldn't be too costly to pick up an accelerator for the quicksilver
If the silence is important. I would avoid MDDs G4s.
The FW800 MDD G4 I have (1.42 GHz) is damn loud. Further, the power supply of it may not last for long.
I know you said you already own a LCD display, however, an iMac G4 (up to 800MHz) might be your better choice for the noise and energy aspect.
Otherwise, recent Intel based Mac (e.g. Mac mini) is pretty fast, quiet and low energy consumption. They can run OS 9.0.4 with SheepShaver at pretty fast speed.
The FW800 MDD G4 I have (1.42 GHz) is damn loud. Further, the power supply of it may not last for long.
I know you said you already own a LCD display, however, an iMac G4 (up to 800MHz) might be your better choice for the noise and energy aspect.
Otherwise, recent Intel based Mac (e.g. Mac mini) is pretty fast, quiet and low energy consumption. They can run OS 9.0.4 with SheepShaver at pretty fast speed.
I used an MDD G4 as my primary, and sometimes only, computer for 7-8 years. It is definitely loud, but I got used to it. Mine is one of the OS 9-bootable ones Apple released together with the first G5 in summer 2003, so it's a bit of an oddball... it boots OS 9 and has a 167MHz system bus, but has no FW800 and a dual 1.42GHz CPU implanted from a January 2003 FW800 model (I got it new as a single 1.25 and kept it up with modernity the best I could). It got me through high school and college, and it still retains a place of honor under my desk even though I don't really use it anymore.
For OS 9 gaming, though, I'd probably go for one of the earlier G4s. By the time you get to the MDDs, everything was really designed for OS X, so if you want OS 9 gaming, any graphite G4 with a good (for the time) video card and a fast single CPU should do. Are the games you plan to play Mac OS-specific, though? All of my Mac OS 9 games are ports of PC games, and if that's the case for you, too, you might be better off just grabbing/building a new PC and the original versions of the games you want to play. It would be faster, more compact, and more energy-efficient.
If you want a general-purpose computer, I second the suggestion of a Mac Mini.
I would say a single processor G4 Quicksilver would work. Preferably a 800 or faster (733's came with no cache and are slow).
Super cheap bordering on free.
Used AGP cards which are inexpensive and easy to upgrade if needed.
Is a screaming OS 9 machine.
Not too noisy and should not overheat.
Can dual boot to OSX 10.4.11 (which can use a cheap USB2 card while OS 9 cannot do anything but USB 1.x).
Only drawbacks would be to make sure the PSU is working. Even if the unit is missing a HD/CDROM and RAM those are super cheap to source (standard IDE and PC133 RAM).
Super cheap bordering on free.
Used AGP cards which are inexpensive and easy to upgrade if needed.
Is a screaming OS 9 machine.
Not too noisy and should not overheat.
Can dual boot to OSX 10.4.11 (which can use a cheap USB2 card while OS 9 cannot do anything but USB 1.x).
Only drawbacks would be to make sure the PSU is working. Even if the unit is missing a HD/CDROM and RAM those are super cheap to source (standard IDE and PC133 RAM).
I would have said the G4 Mini, but they don't boot OS 9 IIRC :/
The ATX conversion is relatively easy, but rules out ADC monitors and bus-powered Firewire devices, as it doesn't supply the +24-27V line required.
G4 Mini can run Classic via Tiger, but not natively boot OS 9.
For Tecneeq: for everyday use I would choose the current Mac Mini. Low power consumption, hardly any fan noise.
For gaming, the Sawtooth Power Macs. But if you want both in one computer, a QuickSilver would probably work best.
This is what i would say,
I'v wanted to respond to this thread many times, but I wanted to gather my thoughts first.
Even in Single cpu 733mhz Quick silver is a very powerful machine, My friend told me when he first got his 1.25 G4 mac mini, when rendering audio the Mac mini was just a hair faster then his 733 Quicksilver, Witch disappointed him greatly. I ended up over clocking that mini to 1.58 for him, witch greatly increased his render times. but anyways.
I suggest:
The QuickSilver Powermac, I was extremely impressed with the Dual 800mhz quicksilver when i had one, it was so sickening fast.
I remember it installed tiger in like 5 minutes. The other machines took 10 to 15 minutes.
Or the:
MDD Powermac, Just make sure you stay away from firewire 800, if its a MDD and it has firewire 400 then you are good to go!
Then you can have the best of all the (native booting) worlds. You can still smack pretty nice video cards in those as well… and they are right now at the lowest price they are ever going to be, couple years from now, I think the collector value/price on those is going to go up!
However for space-
Energy consumption-
The best you can really get , that still will boot MacOS 9 natively is: /w a USB 2.0 Card Bus.
http://www.everymac.com/systems/apple/powerbook_g4/specs/powerbook_g4_1.0.html
I'v wanted to respond to this thread many times, but I wanted to gather my thoughts first.
Even in Single cpu 733mhz Quick silver is a very powerful machine, My friend told me when he first got his 1.25 G4 mac mini, when rendering audio the Mac mini was just a hair faster then his 733 Quicksilver, Witch disappointed him greatly. I ended up over clocking that mini to 1.58 for him, witch greatly increased his render times. but anyways.
I suggest:
The QuickSilver Powermac, I was extremely impressed with the Dual 800mhz quicksilver when i had one, it was so sickening fast.
I remember it installed tiger in like 5 minutes. The other machines took 10 to 15 minutes.
Or the:
MDD Powermac, Just make sure you stay away from firewire 800, if its a MDD and it has firewire 400 then you are good to go!
Then you can have the best of all the (native booting) worlds. You can still smack pretty nice video cards in those as well… and they are right now at the lowest price they are ever going to be, couple years from now, I think the collector value/price on those is going to go up!
However for space-
Energy consumption-
The best you can really get , that still will boot MacOS 9 natively is: /w a USB 2.0 Card Bus.
http://www.everymac.com/systems/apple/powerbook_g4/specs/powerbook_g4_1.0.html
It's really just for OS 9. I have no interest in Classic nor OSX. Gaming isn't even it's main purpose, but i thought it would be the most demanding application i would ever want to run. I want a fairly silent and reasonably fast OS9 box for the next two decades.
The 1.25 MDD isn't my best option, it seems. Right now a Quicksilver with 800 or more MHz appears to be what i want.
And thanks for all the input, it helps a lot. :approve:
The 1.25 MDD isn't my best option, it seems. Right now a Quicksilver with 800 or more MHz appears to be what i want.
And thanks for all the input, it helps a lot. :approve:
For long term purposes, it should be said that the Digital Audio machines were probably more reliable than were the Quicksilvers.
Mind you, an iMac might do it in more style.
Mind you, an iMac might do it in more style.
Also I just wanted to throw this up there,
The Firewire 400 model of the 15" 1ghz powerbook Ti, is the last PB that will natively boot MacOS 9
I see 2 on the bay, here are the links.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/321083709657?ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1423.l2649
http://www.ebay.com/itm/261180309035?ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1423.l2649
The Firewire 400 model of the 15" 1ghz powerbook Ti, is the last PB that will natively boot MacOS 9
I see 2 on the bay, here are the links.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/321083709657?ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1423.l2649
http://www.ebay.com/itm/261180309035?ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1423.l2649
Thank you for pointing this out. I almost bought a 1.25GHz MDD 2003 recently. The main reason holding me back is the noisy factor. (For a long period of time, the dual 1.42 MDD FW800 was my main machine.)
MDD are not known for reliability either.
Ignoring Cory, my gaming OS 9 Mac is actually a Power Mac 7300. It has a 800MHz Sonnet G4, a Rage Orion and a GB of RAM, plus two 7200rpm SCSI drives and a 24x CD-ROM. This plays great old games like Deus Ex, System Shock, Bugdom, DOOM, Unreal/Unreal Tournament, Voyager Elite Force, Dark Forces, Duke Nukem 3D, Pro Pinball, Oni, Carmageddon, Descent I/II, Quake I/II/III, Wing Commander III, Shogo MAD, you name it (yes, those all have Mac OS ports; there's a lot more where that came from). Stick in a USB card and use your favourite mouse, though I just use an ADB one. I ripped all the CDs to the hard disk and just mount them as images; only a few won't run that way.
I also stuck an OrangePC 620 in it with a 400MHz K6-III, which boots Windows 95/98 for specific titles. (For DOS games, I have an Am5x86 with ISA, which seems to run certain EGA titles better.) The only glitch here is that the OrangePC software does not like the G4 card unless I disable both the L2 and L3 caches; it does seem to be fine with G3 cards.
As a gaming card, I prefer Rage 128s to Radeons even though the Radeon is usually higher performance because they also have a lot of graphics glitches in some early 3D games that were never patched. Shogo MAD, for example, displays totally bogus polygons until you apply a Radeon fix, and Quake II never got repaired (so on my Radeon 9000 MDD I have to play it in software rendering or the graphics glitches become unmanageable). Obviously pure software-rendered games don't have a problem but there's not much rendering advantage then either.
I prefer to use my MDD for heavier OS 9 crunching tasks like Virtual PC or CodeWarrior. Relative to the MDD, the 7300 is smaller, more reliable and generally quieter, though the OrangePC card and Sonnet G4 have their own cooling fans (but nothing on the MDD wind tunnel howl). But you have to do some upgrading to get it to the point where it does well, and that will certainly cost more than an MDD, or even a DA G4 or Quicksilver.
I also stuck an OrangePC 620 in it with a 400MHz K6-III, which boots Windows 95/98 for specific titles. (For DOS games, I have an Am5x86 with ISA, which seems to run certain EGA titles better.) The only glitch here is that the OrangePC software does not like the G4 card unless I disable both the L2 and L3 caches; it does seem to be fine with G3 cards.
As a gaming card, I prefer Rage 128s to Radeons even though the Radeon is usually higher performance because they also have a lot of graphics glitches in some early 3D games that were never patched. Shogo MAD, for example, displays totally bogus polygons until you apply a Radeon fix, and Quake II never got repaired (so on my Radeon 9000 MDD I have to play it in software rendering or the graphics glitches become unmanageable). Obviously pure software-rendered games don't have a problem but there's not much rendering advantage then either.
I prefer to use my MDD for heavier OS 9 crunching tasks like Virtual PC or CodeWarrior. Relative to the MDD, the 7300 is smaller, more reliable and generally quieter, though the OrangePC card and Sonnet G4 have their own cooling fans (but nothing on the MDD wind tunnel howl). But you have to do some upgrading to get it to the point where it does well, and that will certainly cost more than an MDD, or even a DA G4 or Quicksilver.
Yeah, I missed the "OS 9" thing on my first read through this thread.
I suppose some helpful information would involve the point at which games stopped being released for Mac OS 9. To be honest, I'm a little bit surprised every time I see or hear someone talking about using a 7300 as their OS 9 gaming machine, but the 7300 always seemed to me like Apple's version of the Dell OptiPlex GX1 -- great for Excel, and comes configured poorly for everything else.
And it has always seemed to me like if you're going to put a gig of ram, a >500MHz processor upgrade and a rage or radeon card in it, you may as well get a blue/white G3 or a sawtooth/gigabit/digiAudio G4 to begin with and just *have* all of that stuff natively on the board. It has been mentioned multiple times in the past week by multiple people that the sawtooth to quicksilver class of system is now essentially what you can pull out of the dumpster for free. (Although ther's a lot to be said for "it's what I had on hand."
Anyway, it sounds like almost anything manufactured by Apple in 2001 and 2002 (aside from the FW800 PowerMac G4 and any iMacs/eMacs/PowerBooks that won't boot Mac OS 9) is within the band of "useful for Mac OS 9 gaming."
I suppose some helpful information would involve the point at which games stopped being released for Mac OS 9. To be honest, I'm a little bit surprised every time I see or hear someone talking about using a 7300 as their OS 9 gaming machine, but the 7300 always seemed to me like Apple's version of the Dell OptiPlex GX1 -- great for Excel, and comes configured poorly for everything else.
And it has always seemed to me like if you're going to put a gig of ram, a >500MHz processor upgrade and a rage or radeon card in it, you may as well get a blue/white G3 or a sawtooth/gigabit/digiAudio G4 to begin with and just *have* all of that stuff natively on the board. It has been mentioned multiple times in the past week by multiple people that the sawtooth to quicksilver class of system is now essentially what you can pull out of the dumpster for free. (Although ther's a lot to be said for "it's what I had on hand."
I'm interested though, is there a listing somewhere? What you've listed is pretty much the well-known pantheon of late '90s or early '00s Mac games. All it's lacking is Myst/Riven and Bugdom/Nanosaur. Oh, and RTS "command the units" games, neverwinter nights (did that make it to Mac OS 9?) and Tomb Raider. (Incidentally, a few of these things I played on my 7300 when I had it the first time 'round in the very early 2000s)
The PowerBook G4 is not very great. However if an 800MHz upgraded 7300 and a Rage128 will do the job, then I don't see why a TiBook wouldn't. Additionally, if you can find one in even halfway decent condition (because they did not age well at all) then it does meet the noise and electricity requirements, more or less.
Anyway, it sounds like almost anything manufactured by Apple in 2001 and 2002 (aside from the FW800 PowerMac G4 and any iMacs/eMacs/PowerBooks that won't boot Mac OS 9) is within the band of "useful for Mac OS 9 gaming."
If you don't care about OSX you might want to track down a 3DFX video card (no OSX support) for a powermac, should run OS 9 fine and works ok for 3d games.
I love old games and have every version of a PC from CGA to the last and best AGP gamer cards along with retro systems like Amiga, Atari 800, Atari ST, IIgs, etc but I never bothered to game on my Macs.
I love old games and have every version of a PC from CGA to the last and best AGP gamer cards along with retro systems like Amiga, Atari 800, Atari ST, IIgs, etc but I never bothered to game on my Macs.
I'm a big fan of 3DFX Voodoo cards!!!!
I have a couple of quicksilvers, and I will tell you the G4 processor upgrades are getting cheap, since they dont work in a cube or the MDD's. I have a 1400 mhz one in a quicksilver and OS9 is fast as fast can be.
I think I answered the point about the stuff not being on board already (in short, I prefer the form factor), but since you asked about titles:
... here's what's on it. There's actually more than what's here, but I haven't hacked Nanosaur yet (it's the iMac version and it has a lockout), and there are a few programs I'm going to load into Mini vMac since they do better there. I mostly favour FPSes and action titles; I use ScummVM on the G5 for the LucasArts games, even the ones I have that are Mac-native. I have Myth around here somewhere, but I never got into it, and I didn't enjoy Myst.
The 7300 does have a nice form factor, I would probably give that up if I were looking pretty specifically to build an OS 9 gaming system -- although I'm pretty much unsurprised by the listing of what you've got handy, so it may just be that Mac OS 9 games never really got to the level where they required the best possible OS 9 video card and the most possible horsepower.
But I'll also mention again I've done relatively little gaming, I just happened to see the thread and remember the discussion about powerful video cards for G4s.
It's also worth noting that I've always been of the mind that if you're doing something on pretty old systems, it's worth just upgrading to a newer system if you need more performance. (An attitude I've been trying to implement in my own stuff, but I definitely understand getting attached to a specific system or even a specific form factor or model.)
But I'll also mention again I've done relatively little gaming, I just happened to see the thread and remember the discussion about powerful video cards for G4s.
It's also worth noting that I've always been of the mind that if you're doing something on pretty old systems, it's worth just upgrading to a newer system if you need more performance. (An attitude I've been trying to implement in my own stuff, but I definitely understand getting attached to a specific system or even a specific form factor or model.)
Well, there is one. but it's an abandonware site and i don't dare mention it's name. It's not the garden. I just finished mirroring it and it's about 90 GB worth of archives.
Most of the games are very old and probably play fine on my iMac 233 or even my trustey old Quadra 650. But some are very new and require a lot more CPU cycles, like Max Payne or Silent Hill 2 for example.
Here is another list, alas without download links:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Macintosh_games