Repairs by Model

Overall average: 23% repaired

Overall Standard Deviation: 0.059 (moderate variation between models)

Least commonly repaired model:

11% Power Macintosh G5/2.3 Dual Processor [Apr 2005 to Oct 2005]

Most commonly repaired models:

32% Power Macintosh G5/2.0 Dual Processor [Jun 2003 to Jun 2004]

29%

Power Macintosh G5/1.8 Single Processor (2nd Version) [Oct 2004 to Jun 2005]

27% Power Macintosh G5/1.8 Dual Processor [Nov 2003 to Jun 2004]

Highest first-year failure rate:

26% Power Macintosh G5/1.8 [Jun 2003 to Nov 2003]

22%

Power Macintosh G5/2.0/PCIe Dual Core [Oct 2005 to present]

Component Failures

Overall component failure average: 2.7%

Standard Deviation: 0.022 (moderate variation between component types)

Most commonly failed/least reliable components (>1 STDEV above average)

Logic board

Least commonly failed/most reliable components (>1 STDEV below average)

Airport, airport antenna

What is everyone's opinion about what I did?

My opinion is two things on what you did.

1. Great listing. I wish we could get access to all the models of this type of data to know what to look out for etc when buying old machines. I know I'm going to take into account that #1 rating for the 2005 model G5 unit as the better unit. At least if I'm reading that 11% means 11% of all the machines you repaired were that model, and NOT 11% of them were fixable...Does that make sense?

2. Thank you for understanding what Standard Deviation is and how to use it properly.. That's one of my pet peeves at work. BRAVO!

I would not switch to a Mac mini:- slower, more expensive hard drive and more expensive optical drive (if you ever want to replace it)

- only one HD and one optical drive

- non-upgradable non-discreet graphics card

- non-upgradable CPU (the newest ones do not use a socketed CPU anymore)

- hard to upgrade memory

- lower RAM ceiling (maybe your processor is fast enough, but you run out of memory)

All of these things lead the Mac mini to have a much shorter useful lifespan. The Mac Pro (or G5) can be upgraded and last a lot longer.

Click to expand...

I disagree. You don't need to constantly upgrade a machine to have a longer useful lifespan. We have PowerMac 9600s which have had the same configuration for ten or more years which are still used occasionally as Avid ABVBs.

Each machine is targeted to a different thing. One could equally argue that a Mac Pro or PowerMac G5 don't make good post-apocalyptic machines because they're not portable and they take too much power, but that argument hinges around whether people care about usability after the apocalypse. Same with mini versus tower - you might care about the number of hard drives, and you might want to swap out the optical drive, but most people get what they need and that's perfect.

As far as the graphics and memory are concerned, the graphics are pretty decent (much better than the Nvidia 6600s and 7300s that come in the last G5s and early Mac Pros), and 8 gigs is as much as the pre-PCIe G5s can take, so that's hardly a point in favor of the towers.

Anyhow, how upgradable are the processors in the G5 towers? Sure, you could swap out a dual 2 GHz CPU card for a dual 2.5 GHz, but it's a TREMENDOUS amount of work, and the cost makes it not really all that worthwhile. On the other hand, if you wanted, you could pull the motherboard of a Mac mini, buy a mobile Core 2 Quad, then send them both off to a facility which does BGA to have them swapped.

My point is that it's really hard to say what's important to most people, and if you make examples which are very atypical, others can also make counterexamples which are atypical.

At work we still have a quad G5 and a dual G5, and we still get a good bit of Avid and Final Cut usage out of them. We also set up Final Cut from time to time on an Nvidia Mac mini. None of the machines is obsolete, and none is not useful.

I disagree. You don't need to constantly upgrade a machine to have a longer useful lifespan

Click to expand...

well the examples you gave for what is still working for you is a bit of a narrow spectrum

Its like saying my 87 oscilloscope is still doing its job fine so why should anyone need to upgrade to a newer / better / faster model

it totally depends on what your going to be doing with it, back to my scope it serves it need for me fine, but its near worthless in modern times

I'm still waiting for prices to come down more. I'm not buying a G5 unless I can get a quad core and even though they are at the lowest levels ever, I still think they have a good deal to drop before they become collectibles and start disappearing from the market.

In what ways, specifically, did the G5 outperform the mini? I don't think anybody actually said that things which were completely disk-bound would be better on a mini, although I do remember saying that 2.5-inch 5400rpm disks aren't bad, as I've been using them in my main computer and haven't felt the need or desire to upgrade to faster ones. If disk performance is absolutely the limiting factor on your use of anything other than a G5, then the only upgrade I can recommend is either switching away from a Mac where you can get an inexpensive, low power consumption machine that can hold 2 3.5-inch SATA disks, or a Mac Pro.

That having been said, I envy what must be the prodigious amounts of spare time you've got , because I would never have found the time to switch my main computer not just once but two or three times in the span of a year. I'd gotten a new PC laptop in January 2009, and it has been my main (almost my only) computer ever since. The only thing I've really done to disturb the machine's continuous availability was to upgrade to Windows 7 -- which was a process that took me nearly a month in terms of planning so I could get it done as quickly as possible.

Owning a recent computer does not qualify as LAGS. It would qualify as such if, with said computer, you were indeed compelled to continue upgrading it or replacing it for whatever reason -- which seems to be what happened, admittedly.

While the mini isn't as visually robust as a PowerMac G5, I have a hard time thinking of ways in which it is actually less capable at anything. The HDMI input/output adapter from blackmagic design (http://www.blackmagic-design.com/products/intensity/ ) is one legitimate need for a Machine with slots, but PowerPC systems aren't supported, "yet" which means it's unlikely to be. However, the blackmagic design USB video input adapter ( http://www.blackmagic-design.com/products/videorecorder/installation/ ) doesn't specify whether or not it requires PowerPC, but it's also likely to work very well with a Mac mini or iMac.

(Note: There are a few other more expensive cards that do work with the G5 -- but if you do any work that would require one of these cards, you probably either already own one, or are paid well enough to be able to justify the purchase price of a Mac Pro in order to take advantage of the additional speed and capability so you can do more of this work so you can get paid more.)

But like I said, you never specified what type of work you are/were doing with the machine.

And so, for me, $460 would go into a new 2009 Mac Mini.

I got my dual 2.5 LCU G5 for $20 (well, more like $40 after the repairs were made to the LCU) as a replacement to my trusty old 9600 and I love it.

lots-o-ram, lots-o-disk space, okay video card and a fibre channel card thrown in just in case (as well as all the other usual internal goodies) and running 10.5 makes it one of the most awesome macs I have ever owned. I only wish I had the 30" cinema display.

While the mini isn't as visually robust as a PowerMac G5, I have a hard time thinking of ways in which it is actually less capable at anything.

Click to expand...

GPU power is a big one if HDD access doesn't count.

G5s went up to 7800GTs, with slightly better models than that flashable too.

The mini only goes up to an integrated 9400 even in the brand new models.

Yes, the mac mini uses an IGP, no, I have never heard anyone say that most average use is worse for it.

The GeFORCE 7800 is ancient. I wouldn't be surprised at all if the 9400m could outperform it when you gave the mini 4 gigs of ram (so it can dedicate 512mb of the memory to the IGP)

Plus, as it has been mentioned before, many of the very latest software titles do not run on PowerPC macs, including Aperture -- which was the one thing hanging on for PowerPC, from Apple. Adobe's Creative Suite 5 will not run on a PowerPC system, Snow Leopard, which I would consider important due to security updates it probably has (like, Leopard's Java will never get updated, and there are some pretty serious security holes in there.)

My question stands: What are you doing on a PowerMac G5 that legitimately extends beyond the capabilities of a Mac Mini or even an iMac, but for which you can't justify spending the money to upgrade to a Mac Pro?

*(Keep in mind, I'm using what is today a midrange PC laptop, more or less the equivalent of the mac mini, but with a keyboard, mouse, monitor and battery built in.)

The GeFORCE 7800 is ancient. I wouldn't be surprised at all if the 9400m could outperform it

Click to expand...

actually it right up kicks a 9400m in the ... if on similar setups, at best a 9400m is on par with like a 7600LE performance and design wise

according to "pass mark" benchmarking software for pc (never used it) a 7800GS is nearly 2x as fast a a 9400m

http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/gpu_list.php

while I wouldnt claim that myself, it is pretty dramatic

actually it right up kicks a 9400m in the ... if on similar setups, at best a 9400m is on par with like a 7600LE performance and design wise

Click to expand...

http://hwbot.org/hardware.compare.do?type=gpu&id=681_1&id=1239_1&id=1233_1&id=1074_1&id=1361_1&id=1480_1No 7600LE on that site though, just Go, GS & GT.

a 7600LE is a 7600 with about a 25% clock reduction, half the feature count, and a narrow memory bus width, its along the lines of a MX setup but with newer generation technology (we used to joke LE stood for looser edition)

I have a agp 8x 7600GS on my now spare/bench machine (paired with a 2ghz single core amd 64 and 2gb of 400mhz ddr1 ram), and it can run something like need for speed carbon, a middle age xbox360 title at 1280x1024 and more detailed settings than the console version over 60fps

but my mothers 9400m laptop, more cpu, more ram, can barley run it on lowest res and lowest details above 10fps

would that matter to anyone if its not doing 3d, well no, but at the same token we have pretty much mastered and maxed out 2d video years ago, and things like hardware HD decompression are already started hitting things like netbooks, and was fairly standard in the upper end geforce 6 + desktop model systems

so if you want a web browser, media player, and general butler, it doesnt matter... if your concerned with power, yea the higher end 7x series will whip the crap out a low end mobile series any day of the week, if you want to start talking about 7800GT vs 9600GTm then there is a debate

Glad I bought the 7800GT for my BTO quad then.

I don't have a G5 yet, but I hope to within the year.

The main thing which kept me away from the was reliability, many more G5 PSUs, boards, and processors cooked themselves to death compared to other mac towers. Now that a lot of iffy machines have burned out, and they are passe enough for the prices to crash, it's getting to be about time for me to score one of the multi-core PCIe boxes. Why? Because I have a huge investment in PPC software, much of which will never make it over to intel. I can buy a decent G5 for $300 if I am patient, which is a lot less than it will cost me to upgrade my software. Getting a mini is a joke to me for multimedia work since I can't install a video encoder card, multiple ethernet cards, SCSI, more RAM, choose my audio and video interfaces, etc.

My strategy is to keep frozen systems for specific software. Just like I keep a MDD and TiBook for crucial OS 9 apps. I will also keep a last-era G5, probably with both a 10.4 and 10.5 partition for my final 64-bit PPC setup. Why screw around with an emulator is the real thing is easily available? I also have a NuBus PPC stashed away for use with certain hardware. I have a tower with special Windoze 98 hardware and software for when I need those. I use an ST Mega4 for older software which won't run on my Atari Falcon.

I just got my G5 a few months ago. It's a single 1.8 Ghz. I got it for $125 to replace my aging G4 Digital Audio 733. The SATA card in my G4 wouldn't allow the system to sleep properly - which isn't an issue in the G5. So, now I'm also saving a bit on my electric bill, because I leave it on all the time as a file server. I just use wake on LAN to access it when I need it.

I use an ST Mega4 for older software which won't run on my Atari Falcon.

Click to expand...

Brother Atarian! I have a Falcon 030 but my best ordinary ST is a 1040STF. I'm trying to track down a TT/030 but they are always like $500-$1000 when they come up on ebay.

I almost got that ST/ game console thing forget off hand what it was called, when it first came out, but I was shopping for a video game console and ended up with a genesis, other than that I have never seen a st in RL, I have seen a 400 tho

I have an 1040STE with an external hard disk. I wish I could say I use it frequently, but it was sort of an impulse buy. Maybe when I get my music studio set up, I'll dust it off as the MIDI controller.

I also have a STacy, which only partially works, and is the world's most benighted thing to disassemble.

I love my Ataris, but they have been put away for most of the past year while I have been slowly moving my music setup around. I've got a box of Dr. T's software which is all amazing fun. Actually I am just taking a break from working on my little studio right now.

Only reason why I got my Ataris for somewhat cheap is that they have all been "projects", ie broken when I bought them. Makes more sense than modifying a collectible unit. My STacy is not happy... I will get that one working someday.

Still have a 2003 PM G5 1.8 Uni which was little or no faster than the PM G4 1.42DP I wanted to replace it with. I added a Radeon X800XT and it is in daily use running 10.5x. Never quite impressed with the move to G5 even when they scaled to Quads and became more complicated.

A Mac Pro is definitely not one I can justify (maybe in 5 years when they are cheap as chips). Firmly stuck in the PowerPC camp at the moment although I do have a 2009 Mac mini just to play with Snow Leopard.

I would love to get my hands on a Mega ST/STE or TT and relive my youth using Calamus for graphic design on a Mega STE...