Power consumption of older Macs (Lampshade?)

So, the 10.4.11 install plus Office 2008 is only 7.x GB big. Impressively small footprint. The complete install can fit on a single dual-layer DVD-R. In fact, I think I'll do that: Make a disk image of the install, save it on DVD-R, and store it away as a secondary backup in case my hard drive backup dies eventually.

The iMac with 10.4.11 also seems faster, likely because it seems to need less memory overall for the OS and Safari and so it does page out as much.

Yeah it was a big annoyance to me that they dropped it in the Airs and the Alu MacBook. That, and the fact that the entry level model didn't have a backlit keyboard is why I didn't buy that 13" MacBook. I'm glad I waited because for the subsequent model they reintroduced Firewire, called it Pro, and made the backlit keyboard standard.

That Thunderbolt brings target mode back is great, but neither my 13" Core 2 Duo MacBook Pro (2009) nor my 17" Core i7 iMac (2010) have it unfortunately.

At least they can boot off USB though, something my Win 7 machines can't do. It's really annoying.

They're all working, although the iMac has a some stuck pixels. All of them have had some work done though. Cubes are heavily updated and even the iBook has had its screen replaced (when it was actually worth something) and the HD replaced (by me - what a PITA). The iMac has a replaced drive (another PITA but not as bad as the iBook), and a memory upgrade.

Yep. Even my GeForce 6200 works like that. This is one big reason I have so many Macs. It's saved my ass a few times.

 

Firewire Macs can do Target Disk Mode with Thunderbolt Macs. You just need a Thunderbolt Firewire adapter.

 

I know it can be done with the Firewire Mac in target mode, but can you put a Thunderbolt Mac in target mode and access it through a Firewire adapter? That's not critical but would be useful for someone like me that doesn't own a Thunderbolt Mac yet.

 

I have not personally tried it, but it's my understanding that you can.

 

I use wired Ethernet.

I did a bit of searching around and did see that while more USB WiFi adapters are supported in 10.5, there are some out there that are supported in 10.4.11 as well.

http://store.rokland.com/products/802-11n-wi-fi-wireless-n-usb-adapter-for-apple-mac-os-x

However, in my experience, as soon as you start going 3rd party without integrated drivers, you may start getting weird glitches.

BTW, if you have a guest network that can drop down to WEP, maybe that's not so bad. It's not as if somebody's going to gain access to your private files via the secondary guest network.

The other option is just to get a WiFi --> Ethernet gaming adapter, or configure a cheap router into a WiFi --> Ethernet bridge. An Airport Express would also work. They can be configured to be WiFi clients and then you just plug the iMac into Ethernet port of the Airport Express to get 802.11n support. However, Airport Express isn't exactly cheap, which is why I suggested the cheap router option. You can pick up a cheap refurb router for about $20 and do the same thing.

http://www.ehow.com/how_6319548_do-wireless-router-gaming-adapter_.html

All you need is a router that supports WiFi bridge mode, which is most of them these days.

 

Is there actually a market for the lampshades?

I have this guy (@1GHz with the airport extreme card): http://www.apple-history.com/imac_early_2003 which I have upgraded in the distant past to 1.25GB of RAM and a 200GB 7200RPM drive (multiple specs on that page are wrong, it runs 10.5 and takes more than 1GB of ram).

It's sitting in the corner of a room on the floor

 

The page you listed includes an 800 MHz model. The 800 MHz model doesn't officially support 10.5. Furthermore, with some versions of 10.5, you'd get weird video glitches after waking from sleep in 10.5 with the 800 MHz model. Dunno about that 1 GHz model. This was solved later though and in 10.5.8 everything works fine.

Your model only officially supports 1 GB RAM (512 MB + 512 MB), but it's supposed to be able to support up to 2 GB RAM (1 GB + 1 GB).

Which reminds me... Maybe I should leave 10.5.8 on my 20" iMac and expand the thing up to 2 GB. It would be a pain though since the DIMM socket isn't usually considered user accessible. You have to disassemble the base to get at the DIMM socket, which is why most people just upgrade it 1.25 GB (which is 256 + 1 GB), which is what you did with yours.

 

Nah, I was already completely inside the system at that point (the hard drive is more or less directly below the top mount fan so I disassembled the whole thing). I have the full size ram stick at 1GB and the user serviceable one at 256. My recollection was always that Leopard needed more RAM to really shine and I'd hoped 1.25 would be enough. I had the thing in the kitchen for months and it was just too slow to bother with so I didn't end up picking up the 1GB SO-DIMM.

 

I know that I am in the market for one, but the 20" model.

So you have this one? Per LowEndMac, it actually supports up to 2GB RAM if you replace both sticks with 1GBs.

I wonder if something like this would work to adapt an SSD into the iMac. Though really, I am not real sure how much benefit there would be there since it is only an ATA100 interface.

 

Heh I'm such an idiot. I finally brought the 20" home and disassembled it, only to discover my set up is the same as yours. I had being going by forum posts saying which slot number was internal to "confirm" my internal slot was only 256 MB but it turns out those posts were not correct. In fact, I have a 1 GB DIMM internally. I hadn't bothered to remove the SODIMM to check its labelling.

Interestingly System Profiler says the 1 GB memory card is ECC. Looking around it seems that makes sense since posts suggest 1 GB sticks at the time were mostly ECC. This is combined with a non-ECC 256 MB SODIMM and works fine.

I will pick up a 1 GB SODIMM and try out 10.5.8 with the 2 GB total RAM.

 

SODIMM ordered.

BTW, I dug up my old Dlink DBT-120 Bluetooth adapter, updated its firmware with Apple's Bluetooth Firmware Updater 1.2 for Mac OS X 10.3.6 (which works on 10.5.8 and supposedly 10.4 as well), and then paired my aluminum A1314 Apple Wireless Keyboard with the 20" iMac G4 with 10.5.8.

Works fine, except the special function keys don't work. ie. Pressing the Dashboard F4 function key doesn't activate the Dashboard. That requires 10.6.8 I think. Not sure though.

Next test: Apple Magic Mouse on 10.5.8, and both the mouse and keyboard on 10.4.11.

If that works, that'd be perfect. The white iMac G4 20" looks good with a wireless BT keyboard (silver) and mouse (white). It's usable with no speakers, as there is a built-in speaker, so that can reduce clutter.

 

That's the one.

Mine apparently didn't come with Bluetooth though, so I have an old Belkin USB bluetooth dongle I used to connect my Apple Wireless Keyboard to it (plug and play! It just worked). I used a wireless mouse from Microsoft as its mousing buddy at the time.

 

Sweet. With the Wireless Keyboard Update 2.0, all the function keys work fine. Requires 10.5.8.

Also, there is a Wireless Mouse Software Update 1.0 which also requires 10.5.8.

---

So, it seems for all you people considering getting a G4, I'd now recommend getting a late 2003 version with USB 2 and support for up to 2 GB RAM.

To get it as functional as possible, add a Bluetooth dongle and the two above wireless updates, max out the RAM, and install 10.5.8 Leopard on it. If you can't max out the RAM and don't need Bluetooth, then 10.4.11 is OK on an older machine (albeit with only USB 1.1). However, even in 10.4, minimum 1 GB is recommended IMO.

 

And in those USB 2 models you got DDR RAM as well. Anything to help that poor G4

 

iMac G4 1.25 20" with Bluetooth peripherals:

Off: 0 Watts
Bootup with with screen set to low moderate brightness (6/16 bars): 50-75 Watts.
Idle at that brightness: 52 Watts.
Flurry screensaver at that brightness: 57 Watts
Idle at full brightness: 77 Watts
Flurry screensaver at that brightness: 83 Watts
Xbench at full brightness: 100 Watts

Note that I might have had the 15" in the quoted post at a somewhat higher brightness, than the low moderate for the 20". The room with the 15" had more ambient light.

Still, I'm a bit surprised that the 20" didn't use that much more power.