I just finished downgrading a 1.67 GHz PowerBook G4 with 2 GB RAM and an 80 GB 5,400 RPM Apple OEM HD. It was being downgraded because the owner said Leopard seemed too sluggish, especially in photo editing software. I ran benchmarks. Sure enough, it appears Leopard 10.5.5 was about 20% slower than Tiger 10.4.11. Benchmarks were run on a clean system with nothing else running.
Leopard 10.5.5: Xbench 1.3 score: 41.9 Let 1K Windows Bloom time: 14 seconds Tiger 10.4.11: Xbench 1.3 score 49.5 Let 1K Windows Bloom time: 10 seconds The individual stats seemed to indicate about an across the board 20% advantage for Tiger over Leopard. I noticed this difference myself, the Tiger OS seemed more snappy. It appears that for G4 CPUs it may be best to stick with Tiger unless you need Time Machine. Time Machine seems pretty "beta" still, with lots of reports of stalling, inability to recover data, and even wholesale need to reformat the backup HD. Leopard isn't Vista, but it's the first OS X edition to go slower on PPC Macs than it's predecessor. On Intel Macs Leopard actually runs faster than Tiger, so go figure? --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
