Vampire Video

From Mike Gruszczynski:

Dan,

As always, kudos on presenting great discussions of both new and old Apple hardware.

I just thought I would give my two cents on the vampire video discussion. As an owner of a late '06 Core2 Duo MacBook, I've grappled with the effects of the integrated chipsets on these computers. Of course, I would love it if Apple provided dedicated graphics, but I have been more than pleasantly surprised at the real- world performance of this little beast. Although this computer is mostly used for grad school-related projects, I still somehow find the time for games of many stripes.

A good example of this - this computer can handle both Call of Duty (which runs in Rosetta) and Call of Duty 2 - which surprised me when I first tried it. Frame rates are relatively high, though obviously not close to what a MBPro would handle, but more than acceptable. In addition, I've found that many recent games run great on my Windows XP partition (though interestingly, Call of Duty 2 on the PC side doesn't support the graphics hardware).

So, all in all, I'd agree that while it would be nice to have the nicer graphics hardware, it is also a good thing that these machines are affordable, especially for those who are stuck in school forever (and forever without money). And I'd also like to note my weariness toward benchmark tests - in actuality, I think these machines are capable of much more than laboratory tests let on.

Again, great job on the site, and have a great Thanksgiving!

Mike G

Mike,

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Benchmarking has its strengths and weaknesses, and one weakness of many 3D gaming benchmarks is that they use higher screen resolutions and have more features enabled than people with low-end graphics processors are realistically going to use.

For those who want the highest resolution and all the graphic embellishments enabled, dedicated graphics is the way to go. For the rest of us, integrated graphics should be good enough for everything but high-end 3D gaming.

Dan

Vampire Video in the Modern Age

From Ed Hurtley:

While your article does accurately reflect the condition of integrated graphics for the previous generation of integrated video, the GMA 950 (sadly, still used in the mini), it does not apply to the X3100 graphics used in the latest MacBooks. The three big differences between integrated graphics and discrete graphics:

  1. As mentioned, integrated graphics almost always uses main system memory instead of having dedicated memory. Once upon a time, Intel did offer dedicated memory modules for their integrated video, but I haven't seen it even as an option since 2000.
  2. Integrated video generally does not have a "Texture and Lighting" unit, relinquishing this functionality to the main CPU. This is where the new X3100 is superior. It has a T&L unit, just like a discrete video card.
  3. Because they are integrated, they tend to be designed to be inexpensive to produce, and therefore, are relatively "underpowered" by modern standards. However, the X3100 should be at least an equal for the old Radeon 9200 that was in the mini G4 and the last generation iBook. (In addition, even the GMA 950 has pixel shaders, making it Core Image compatible, where the Radeon 9200 did not have pixel shaders, so wasn't Core Image compatible.)

With better drivers, X3100 should be able to reach the performance of low-end discrete video, at significantly reduced cost (for Apple). But, of course, integrated video will never be even a close match for the midrange video Apple uses, much less high-end video of the expensive Mac Pro add-in cards or PC cards.

Ed Hurtley

Ed,

I don't have a MacBook, and I'm not a 3D gamer, so I have no way of knowing how well the integrated Intel graphics works - or how the X3100 GPU compares with the older GMA 950. I have to depend on the findings of others. Bare Feats has tested the last two versions of the MacBook head-to-head for 3D graphics, and their findings are mixed:

In non-gaming benchmarks, X3100 handily beats GMA 950 - almost twice the score in the Cinebench 10 flyby benchmark. Still, in every case the MacBook Pro, with dedicated midrange graphics, runs circles around the MacBooks with their integrated graphics.

For most people most of the time, integrated graphics are good enough. The problem comes primarily in 3D gaming, and perhaps Apple's biggest stumbling block is that they provide no way for users to add a better graphics card to the low-end Macs with integrated video. If someone with a low-end Intel Mac wants to move into 3D gaming, it's a lot cheaper to buy a Windows PC than a $1,200 iMac or $2,000 MacBook Pro.

Dan

Vampire Video

From Jeff Wiseman:

Dan,

A couple of things about the the video discussion, but first a little info.

  1. I am not a gamer (last game I bought and enjoyed was Civ II) and think that "shooters" are best left to dedicated hardware.
  2. My main computer is is a 1.83 MacBook Core Duo, 2 GB RAM, driving a 20" monitor, and the internal LCD, on my desktop.
  3. My previous computer was a 1.25 G4 mini, driving the same monitor.
  4. I also have a 1 GHz eMac set up for some photo and DVD work.

Three things struck me about the Integrated Graphics article that I would like to comment on.

First, when Apple was comparing the mini to budget PCs, most of the budget models were single core and came with 2 RAM slots with one 512 MB module installed. My in-laws bought a couple of different PC models in the first 6 months after I bought my mini, and the video performance wasn't good compared to the mini. Even when the PCs were upgraded to two 512 modules, the performance still lagged.

The second thing is how does the MacBook video compare to the model it replaced, i.e. the iBook G4? This would be a more realistic comparison than comparing to higher model laptops or desktops. I know my MacBook seems to have better graphics performance compared to my Mac mini, the eMac, or the iBook G4/800 it replaced. I find the graphics more than adequate in daily use, no matter what the Xbench scores.

The third thing is what the Xbench scores are referenced against. The base is a 100 when run on a 2 GHz Dual G5 with a GeForce 6800 Graphics card. Running Xbench on my MacBook gives the following results: Quartz 117.77, OpenGL 218.00, UI 156.57

Personally, I think this is pretty good for what was the low end of the Apple laptop line a year ago.

Jeff Wiseman

Jeff,

Thanks for writing and sharing your experiences. I had a Windows laptop for a couple years, so I know how bad integrated graphics can be - just using Windows (or Linux) was excruciatingly slow.

In computing history, I think 2006 will be seen as the year Apple took two big steps forward, and one step back. Going Intel made it possible to run Windows on Macs, as well as to directly compare the hardware. Making dual-core processors mainstream leveraged that and the strengths of Mac OS X as a multiprocessor-ready operating system. And reintroducing "vampire video", which Apple had long since abandoned, is the step backwards.

The problem is twofold: low-end graphics processors vs. midrange in the MacBook Pro and iMac, along with the use of system memory vs. dedicated video memory. I wish Apple had gone with a low-end GPU from ATI or nVidia along with dedicated video memory, as the GMA 950 video used in low-end Intel Macs (prior to the Santa Rosa MacBook) is only just adequate - and Leopard is more graphically demanding than Tiger was.

Still, for most users most of the time, integrated graphics is plenty good enough. Just avoid the demanding 3D games.

Dan

Angry Reviews?

From Gerard Daniels:

Maybe its just me, but lately you're reviews seem a bit angry. Core Duo mini a Road Apple? Maybe you're trying to provoke fans?

Although your suggestion to use a FireWire drive may be good for some of you're sponsors, there are not many low-budget FireWire drives available. And who buys a Mac mini - especially used minis! - for 3D gaming? I've used integrated graphics in both Macs and PCs - and for watching or recording video, even HD, even streaming over the Internet. They have been just fine.

Also, you mention opening up the mini and changing CPUs - how about a hint about transplanting the unit into a different case entirely? I'm planning on using a full-size SATA drive with my mini - it will require hacking the case if I can't find an alternative case/cover. Some help with a cover or case replacement would be much preferable to this repetitive whining about "vampire video." And it still will be cheaper than a CPU transplant.

Cheer up, little trooper!

Gerard,

I think it's a mistake to offer a consumer computer that doesn't do well what a fair number of computer users do - play games. And I think it's a mistake to design a consumer computer that's more expensive than it needs to be - and more compromised.

Maybe that sounds angry. I'm certainly disappointed that Apple doesn't offer a true low-end consumer computer. In my book, that would be a bit bigger than the Mac mini yet still smaller than most "desktop" PCs on the market. It would have integrated graphics to keep costs down, along with an AGP 8x or PCI Express slot for adding a dedicated video card for those who find the integrated graphics lacking. It would have a 3.5" hard drive, an internal power supply, one more expansion slot (PCI or PCI Express), and have room for a second optical drive or second hard drive. And it would sell for no more than the Mac mini.

FireWire drives can be cheap or expensive. If you want the best drive in the best enclosure with the most interfaces, you can pay a small fortune. If you want a 250 GB drive in FireWire only or FireWire/USB enclosure, you can get if for well under $100 (or buy the drives and enclosures separately and put them together yourself, as I've been doing since the days of SCSI).

As a longtime Mac user, I'm surprised that while so many make companion hard drives for the Mac mini, nobody has built a bigger enclosure to house the mini with a 3.5" drive. MicroMac once built an expansion chassis, the LC Power WorkStation, that did something similar to the Mac LC.

Good luck with your project.

Dan

The Road Apple Label

From Bill Brown:

Yo Dan,

You've been anguishing far to much over what should be little more than a cute sideview on Macs. Yes, all Macs, every one of 'em lines up on a slippery slope from the best to the least. For those that are at the least end of the slope, well, the Road Apple label fits. So be it. I'm glad you created it. I'm glad you use it.

But how many is enough without making the list both unmanageable as well as overly condemning. A long and growing longer shopping list of Road Apples becomes increasingly useless to the reader and your purpose. We've lots of websites to go to to find growing condemnation of the Mac. And they are much quicker and better at condemning lots of Macs than you. So don't waste your time getting picky to make your point. Control yourself Dan.

Long a tool of managing many kinds of log jams, contain yourself to a list of ten. In this case, ten Road Apples. No more than the ten truly worst Macs ever foisted on the public. You know which ten they are. That ten is your list. If a new Mac earns the title, than one comes off. Ten Road Apples; no more.

Yes, there are weak Macs that don't make a list of ten. Maybe one even returns from the list of ten replaced by a new Road Apple. This list of weak Macs is long, very long, and growing. Take a look at these weak Macs. Do you see something common in them? I do. For the most part, these weak Macs are consumer Macs, Macs created to the hard reality of a price-point, Macs that make do. Yet they are Macs that give huge numbers of us the Mac experience we seek; and our pockets are not deep. Let this be also. There are Road Apples and there are weak Macs. The rubble pile of Road Apples should be way more than merely the weakest of the weak. The title Road Apple means realy really bad! Designed bad and foisted upon us by the dark side of Apple. Leave us our merely weak Macs without smearing them as butt ugly.

Ten. Ten Dan. That's all. Ten Road Apples. The rest are merely weak; the very stuff of Low End Mac.

Bill Brown

Bill,

One thing we did was separate out the worst from the less compromised models, which leaves just 9 Macs with the Road Apple label at present (LC, LC II, Classic II, Color Classic, Mac IIvx, Mac TV, x200 Series, cacheless PowerBook G3, and the Core Solo Mac mini). There are a couple of other Macs that may make the Second Class Macs list, particularly the PowerBook 3400, 20th Anniversary Mac, and "Kanga" PowerBook G3 - and perhaps one of them will round out our Road Apple list to 10.

Dan

Cheapest Way to Get Into a G4 Mac

From Russell:

Dan:

I have posted this to the AppleFritter forums too, but though it might make a good article for Low End Mac.

I would like to get into something more than my 180 MHz PowerBook 3400 and am wondering: What would be the cheapest way to get into a G4 Mac? Would a G3 Blue & White (my favorite look) with a G4 upgrade be cheap? Would a stock G4/400 or so work for everyday use and be on the low end?

Something to consider: Use of modern large hard drives; will an additional card be needed?

RAM: With 1 GB the standard these days, DDR2 really cheap, and older RAM pretty expensive, would it make sense to buy a newer machine that can take newer RAM? Are there some kind of "RAM adapters" that allow newer RAM in older machines like there were in the old days?

I haven't done a lot of research on it yet but have realized my 17" 1.67 GHz G4 PowerBook ($800 to 1,000 on eBay) is just a budgetary dream at this point :^(

Thanks a lot for your website.

Russell

Russell,

The most reasonable way to get into a G4 Mac is probably the first generation AGP Power Macs, the Sawtooth models. No gigabit ethernet. Often problems with dual-processor upgrades. But a lot cheaper than a Blue & White G3 with a G4 upgrade. Current prices are $110-130 for 400-500 MHz Sawtooth models. And they'll handle drived to 128 GB with no trouble.

RAM is expensive: $80 for 1 GB, and around $170 for 2 GB. If you plan to max out RAM and want a big hard drive, a used 733 MHz Quicksilver might be a better choice. Currently $269 from Baucom, you can bring RAM to 1.5 GB for just $75, you also get gigabit ethernet, a better video card, a faster memory bus, and I've heard some of compatible with "big" hard drives. You also get quite a speed boost.

Either would be a good choice, but if you can swing it, the Quicksilver will serve you better in the long run.

Dan

Leopard via NetInstall

From Noble Brown:

I'd just like to add my own report that the DVD hack for unsupported machines also works with a Leopard netinstall image. You simply open up the image and edit it in the same fashion as you would the DVD. Hold down "N" at boot, and it works just like any other netinstaller. No problems with it so far, outside of an 800 MHz iMac G4 having the white screen issue mentioned on your site and a Gigabt G4 refusing to boot (KP saying platform not supported) until the firmware was updated. Several more went off without a hitch.

Noble Brown

Noble,

Thanks for sharing your findings. I've never worked with NetInstall, so it never would have occurred to me.

Dan

Problem with Leopard on an Upgraded MDD

From Jack Curry:

Hey Dan

Regarding Ted Irving's blue screen after upgrading to Leopard, this has been an issue with people for a while. I ran into a similar problem when installing Leopard on an iMac; everything works just fine now. I don't know if Ted's experiencing the same issue, but it couldn't hurt to try Option-C as laid out in this Knowledge Base article. Just boot into single user and follow the instructions:

<http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=306857>

Hope this helps!

-Jack

Jack,

Thanks for the tip.

Dan

Unsupported Leopard and Video Cards

From Lee Farrell:

Hello Mr. Knight,

I've written in a few times before and am still as avid a reader as ever of your site. I recent put Leopard on my Dual 500 MHz Power Mac G4 (Gigabit Ethernet) with 896 megs of RAM and am loving it. It boots fast, performance is snappy, and the system actually seems a bit faster than it was under Tiger! There's only one thing that bugs me about it, and that's its video performance.

This G4 still has the stock Rage 128 Pro 16 meg card in it, and let me tell you, the graphics in Leopard suck on this card. From going between Spaces, to Exposé, to even bringing up the Dock (I used the terminal hack to get the non-reflectorama dock BTW), everything that's in any way graphical in the system is sloooooooow. I'd really like to get a better video card for this wonderful machine, and I was wondering if you had any suggestions, as I know nothing about video cards.

Thank you, and long live LEM!

Lee Farrell

Lee,

I've done a little research in this area, but I'm far from an expert. The lowest-end cards that support Core Animation are the nVidia GeForce FX5200 and the ATI Radeon 9600, both of which are currently offered by Applemacanix on eBay in the $80-90 range.

If you don't want or need full Core Animation support, you can buy a Radeon 7500 AGP for $30. That should run circles around your Rage 128 graphics.

Dan

Leopard on a Quicksilver 2001 and Others

From Peter Lawrence:

Hello Dan,

I wanted to drop you a line outlining my experiences with installing Leopard on various machines.

1. What unsupported Mac(s) have you installed it on? Quicksilver 2001

  1. How much RAM? 1.5 GB (3 identical Kingston 512 MB Modules)
  2. How fast a CPU, and what brand, if it's an upgrade? Originally, it came with a 733 MHz G4, but now it has a dual 1.6 GHz PowerLogix G4.
  3. What video card does your Mac have? GeForce 6200. 256 MB VRAM, dual 17" LCDs.

2. Which installation method did you use, a modified installer or installing from a supported Mac? I put the DVD in the drive, held down "c" and launched the installer. Simple as that.

3. What doesn't work? Especially check out Time Machine (which requires a second hard drive at least as big as your main one), DVD Player, Front Row, and VLC. Time Machine works (albeit, a little less slick than iBackup, which I've used for the past 6 months). DVD player and VLC work as they should (that is, as they did under Tiger). I haven't tried Front Row.

4. How does performance compare with Tiger subjectively and objectively?

  1. If you have a chance, run Xbench and Geekbench (before and after would be nice) and let us know the results. Geekbench: 1179 under Tiger, 1175 under Leopard. Certainly within the confines of statistical anomalies.
  2. Have you made any changes to your Mac since installing Leopard - more RAM, a better video card, a faster hard drive? How has that improved things? I upgraded my HD before installing Leopard, as the original 40 GB was starting to cause issues. I put a 60 GB IDE Seagate Barracuda 7200 RPM drive in there, and the machine is happy. For whatever reason, that machine eats boot drives every 6 months or so.

I've also installed Leopard on my iBook G4 (1.33 GHz, 1.25 GB RAM, 60 GB HDD, 14") and my friends PowerBook G4 (1.5 GHz, 1.25 GB RAM, 80 GB HDD, 12"). No hassles there, but these machines are both supported. The Quicksilver's menu bar is translucent, whereas the iBook and PowerBook's are not. (Go figure, eh?). I have a NetDisk enclosure, which I used NDAS Utility under Tiger to access, and that no longer works under Leopard.

I do like Leopard, but there are teething issues.

Cheers,
Peter

Peter,

Thanks for sharing your findings. So far every report I've seen of "unsupported" Mac with a faster than 866 MHz CPU upgrades says the stock installer works just fine.

That NDAS networked storage sounds like quite a step up from traditional servers and NAS, and the price is very attractive. I hope Ximeta will get a Leopard-compatible driver out the door soon.

Dan

Road Apple Nomination

From Joseph Burke:

I was just wondering since the Powerbook 5300 and G3 Mainstreet are on the Road Apple list, why is the G3 Kanga not there as well? The PB 5300 was really a 5x0c with a PPC upgrade. In the same way, the G3 Kanga is a 603 based 3400 with a G3 upgrade installed. It was insanely expensive compared to the first generation Wallstreets and is the only G3 Mac not to be certified to run under any version of OS X. This machine was obviously only released to fill a gap in production between the 3400 and the Wallstreets. I pity anyone who shelled out the $5,700 for the Kanga when the Mainstreet was released only six months later at $2,295 - and even without the cache, it was still a better machine. This is a machine full of compromises that should never have been released and should be considered on a par with some of the worst Macs ever.

Joseph,

The PowerBook 3400 and "Kanga" G3 are on our short list of candidates.

Dan

Elimination of Classic in Leopard Was Premature

From Joseph Burke:

I just wanted to say that Apple's decision to eliminate Classic support in Leopard was premature. Leopard was compiled to run on G4s and G5s as well as Intel machines, and there are still plenty of G4 and G5 owners who use Classic. Apple should have waited until they phased out PowerPC support entirely to eliminate Classic mode, as it's already unsupported on Intel machines. That would have made much more sense.

Joseph,

I couldn't agree more. That's why I'm sticking with Tiger for production work, although I hope to get Leopard on one of my Macs before the end of the year.

Dan

DropStuff Has Been Dropped

From Colin Kraft:

Dan,

I've been setting up my luxurious new mini, and I decided to do a clean install and then pick and choose what I wanted to copy over to the new machine this time. I decided to compress some files I rarely use.

I've used Stuffit Lite, which contained DropStuff and Stuffit Expander, for years. However, I was surprised when I was unable to find Stuffit Lite anywhere. Alladin, which became Allure, which nows seems to be Smith Micro, doesn't appear to offer Stuffit Lite anymore. If you sign up to be spammed, you can download Stuffit Expander v12.0, which only unpacks files. If you need to stuff something, it looks like you need to be prepared to shell out $79. That's a shame.

I did some research and found a feature I had overlooked for the past three years while I was using Stuffit Lite. If you are in Finder, you can simply right click on a file and select Create Archive, and that will create a .zip file presumably using gzip, which comes with OS X.

I also found that you can zip from Terminal using ditto:

ditto -c -k -X file file.zip

If you then double-click on file.zip in Finder, the OS unzips it for you.

I have to now question the value of the StuffIt line. Although it may be better integrated, I don't see how to justify the expense. The one exception may be if you need to get a file to a classic OS. In that case, better hope you still have your floppies. : )

-C

Colin,

StuffIt was the de facto standard on the Mac for ages, but the industry standard Zip compression scheme has replaced it in the OS X era. Just another way OS X saves us money.

BTW, you can created and unzip Zip files in the classic Mac OS with MacZip, which is also free. It even works on old 680x0 Macs.

Dan

Need for iMac 266 et al Profile Update

From Bill Brown:

Yo Dano,

I perused LEM's iMac 266 profile being it is the Mac of the day today. We have a couple dozen fruit flavored early iMacs up here at the senior center using 'em for training and lots more. Several are 266s. We've upgraded all of ours as well as many others belonging to our codger clients. 320 MB of memory and Tiger is typical. Thus a review of your profile was to refresh my own memory of what it is we have. I see a few nits in your profile for the 266 as well as the 233 and 333 that you may want to clean up.

On the advice to partition drives to less than 8 GBs or less, specifically to 7.42 GB as reported by Disk Utility hasn't worked for us. We partitioned several at 7.42 which never worked. We dropped to

7.38 which worked sporadically. We just said to 'ell with it and partition at the first notch above 7.0. This always works. Getting drives in and out of these things is to much of a hassle to probe for the fine edge. All we are doing is downsizing 10 and 13 GB drives to replace dead 6 GB drives. Our Tiger software load uses 58% of a 6 GB drive so we are phat partitioned at 7 GB. I suggest you suggest partitioning closer to 7 GB when 7.42 GB doesn't work.

We installed Tiger by removing the drive and connecting it externally to an iMac G5 from which we did the Tiger install. We've done this with a Mac Mini as well. Works perfect every time. ExPostFacto is not the only way to get Tiger on an early iMac. You may want to include our external on a Tiger supported Mac method as well.

Using the OEM 6 GB hard drive as a target, a minimal install of Tiger and the iLife '05 suite is suggested for inclusion in your profile. No languages, only the printer driver family you need. Use Delocalizer to strip the languages. Install only iTunes and iPhoto. iMovie, iDVD, and Garage Band won't work on a G3 so don't load 'em. Install Appleworks if you must have a word processor. iTunes will update and work all the way to the current 7.5. We haven't gotten iPhoto 6 to work on a G3 so stay with 5. After all the updates, run Delocalizer again as the updates put those pesky languages back on. We end up at 58% on a 6 GB drive which is decent.

In maybe 4 dozen early iMacs, we have not found one that will not accept a 256 MB memory card. With an OEM 32 or 64 MB memory card and a 256 MB card added, Tiger runs satisfactorily. We no longer retain a 32 MB card using 64s in all cases. This little jump gives a noticeable boost in performance. A 128 or second 256 does even better.

If people have a problem with a 256 MB memory card, it is likely the finicky memory issue of that era. Try a different 256 card.

Interesting experience with some 32 MB memory cards. Typically, these early iMacs come to us with one or two 32 MB memory cards running MacOS 9.1 or 9.2.x. And About this Mac reports 32 MB for each card. After installing Tiger, About this Mac reports one or both cards as 64 MB. We know there were some finicky memory issues with these Macs some time back. We are happy that some 32 MB memory cards are really 64 MB which MacOS 9 couldn't read or use accurately. Don't toss a 32 until you know it is only a 32.

We have found two of these early iMacs, likely 333s, that would accept and report a 512 MB card. We don't hold our breath looking for these rarities. We have no idea if these two iMacs will accept two 512s. I believe the 512 cards were the larger high profile cards for the top slot only.

We were very confused then pleasantly surprised that two of these early iMacs came to us with accelerator cards in them. Confused because one reported at 466 MHz and the second at 400 MHz. Not in an A - D iMac thinks we. The 400 works with Tiger just fine really clipping right along. With Tiger, the 466 won't even give us a startup pphongg. We keep it as our only MacOS 9 iMac where it clips right along too. The give away is that the processor card has no Apple decal on it telling you the speed.

Your profile may benefit from telling people that the flash firmware chip is on this same little removable card that contains the processor and the memory slots. From time to time, we receive a 233 that behaves strangely. We swap this card with one we know that has had its firmware updated and all is well. So then we go back and update the firmware on the flakey card and all is well. With the passing of time, we tend to overlook this MacOS 8.6 era need to update the firmware. The odd quirk here is that even WITHOUT the firmware upgrade, it will usually boot into Tiger looking just fine - until it crashes. Very strange.

On WiFi: Yes, these early iMacs have no Airport support. Yet they WiFi superbly. We routinely use an Edimax USB wireless gadget we first heard about here on LEM. Bought one from OWC, installed the downloaded Mac driver, restarted, then plugged in the USB gadget. It works. Better than Airport of that era, this Edimax USB gadget does b, g, or n flavored wireless, whatever your router is dishing out. Even better, this gadget works plugged into the end of the keyboard where almost nothing else works.

I trust you can find some nuggets here to revise the tray loader iMac profiles.

Thank you Dan.

Bill Brown