On Oct 23, 2008, at 8:51 PM, Kris Tilford wrote:
> > The highest XBench score for a PowerBook 867 MHz running Leopard was > 28.68. The corresponding highest Tiger score was 44.18. If XBench is a > reliable metric, Tiger is 54% faster on average than Leopard. Whatever > advantages Leopard may have, I don't think they're worth a 54% speed > penalty. The key question in there is 'if xbench is a reliable metric'. I don't think it is, my Macs (a G4 powerbook 1Ghz, and a 1Ghz upgraded sawtooth) are CERTAINLY not 50% slower they were with Tiger...in fact they're roughly the same, in use from my experience. If PPC Macs were that much slower I would have had a pile of complaints by now, as I've upgraded 25 or so systems around the college, and these people have no compuctions about complaining if things don'w work as well. About half of the upgraded systems were PPC systems. I fully expect that XBench is broken under 10.5. It's built with the version of XCode that came with 10.4, and there are a lot of 'under the hood' changes to OS X between 10.4 and 10.5. Heck, the latest release of Xbench is from 2006... -- Bruce Johnson University of Arizona College of Pharmacy Information Technology Group Institutions do not have opinions, merely customs --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to Low End Mac's G-Books list, a group for those using G3 iBooks and PowerBooks (we run a separate list for G4 'Books). The list FAQ is at http://lowendmac.com/lists/g-books.html and our netiquette guide is at http://www.lowendmac.com/lists/netiquette.shtml To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/g-books?hl=en Low End Mac RSS feed at feed://lowendmac.com/feed.xml -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
