---------- Original message ---------- Subject: Re: Why are you (still) using PowerPC-based Macs? Date: Samstag 23 Januar 2010N From: Dan <[email protected]> To: [email protected]
> At 11:59 AM +0100 1/23/2010, Mac User #330250 wrote: > > > Why? What did you do to it? My 300-MHz Smurf handles files just as > >> > >> fast as my 1.5 GHz PB G4, and my housemate's x GHz AMD Windoze > >> machine. Safari displays pages almost as fast as they do too. Iffa > >> your Smurf is slow, then you messed something up. > > > >Might well be. I installed Tiger using my G4. I did all the updates and > >installed everything System Update was offering > > Do you use Dashboard? If not, disable it (with OnyX). It's chewing > up 40 MB real memory. Yes, Dashboard is disabled. I don't use it so I have it disabled on all my Macs (except the G5 -- it really doesn't matter there). > Check to see how much cpu time Spotlight's indexing is chewing (md* > processes). You may find your system is much more responsive if you > disable the indexing. (Search this LEM list for the details of using > the mdutil commands to do it). I'll do so as soon as I'm in the office again next week. Thanks for the hint. > >(including iTunes 9.0.2). > > iTunes performance is pretty much a total embarrassment to Apple. > That being said, while 9 is required to talk to much of the iTunes > Store now, the offical version for G3 systems is 8.2.1. I knew that iTunes 9 is no longer officially for the G3s, but I didn't care at the time of installation as I thought I'll not be using it much anyway. I prefer much slimmer applications for listening to music, but the real reason is that in the office it is not really possible for me to have music on anyway. > >GIMP 2.6.6 > > GIMP is nice. I prefer GraphicConverter 5.9.5 on the Smurf. I'll check it out. But I'm guessing that GraphicConverter isn't free... I won't be buying additional software. I'm using graphics software so rarely that it wouldn't be worth the investment. > >OpenOffice.org 3.1.1 > > Slow on any sub-GHz system. AppleWorks kicks its butt. All my documents are OpenDocument now. Besides OpenOffice I don't know which other applications truely supports this. I'm willing to wait for the application to start just to get compatible documents. The same is true for Microsoft Office:Mac 2004 -- which is by the way the only software I bought (second hand) for the Mac. > >Stuffit Expander 13.0.3 > > Known to clobber Finder's performance, and cause so many other > problems... StuffIt is pretty much crapware these days. Make it go > away. Thanks. But how? Do I just drag it to the pin? > >Carbon Copy Cloner 3.2.1 > > Update this. I thought it was the newest version. I'll check. > >Adobe Reader 9.2 (I yet have to update to 9.3!) > > If you don't need Reader for something specific, use Preview instead. > Reader is typical Adobe crapware - it's full of security holes etc. I read somewhere that Preview is using xpdf code, which has security issues for its own too. (Meaning that some issues affect xpdf only, while others affect Acrobat only.) Anyway, Preview is slimmer, true. I'm having Adobe Reader installed for compatibility reasons though. I sometimes have to work with PDFs, including PDF forms and I'm not sure wether Preview supports it all. > >Burn 2.3 (the G3 build) > > Nice build of ffmpeg therein; I use it often (t'was easier than > building my own copy). But then I use Sizzle to create the DVD > itself - much better control etc. I'll check out Sizzle. I've Burn only for this one time when I really need to burn an optical media (propably a CD)... > ...Performance tip: Transcoding is very cpu intensive, which can > really slow your system's response time. So I get the process going, > then renice it to +10. This essentially lowers its priority, so the > system will kick it to the curb faster when I start using the Mac for > other things. When I walk away from my Mac, I'm careful to sleep the > display or at least put the mouse in the "screen saver off" corner. > I'd rather the cpu time was given to ffmpeg or Sizzle than the screen > saver. > sudo renice +10 pid I'll keep that in mind, but it's not applicable to me. I always shut my B&W down completely. I noticed that when putting it to sleep, part of the fans keep working (the power supply?) and this is a no-go situation. I don't know if the power supply is original or not. (You remember I got this G3 B&W as a present and it was not working at all at first, so I'm happy with it anyway.) > >Mozilla Firefox 3.5.2 (as I'm writing this 3.6 is out) > >Camino 2.0.1 > >Flash Player 10.0.42.34 > >Shockwave Player 11.5.2.602 > > Be sure to install a Flash blocker in your browsers. Amazing how > fast the web becomes when Flash is put under tight control!!! I'm using NoScript in Firefox. But Flash is not the friction here: I also installed AdBlock Plus with some filters -- Firefox takes over 3 minutes to start with even one or two filters active. The ad filters would be nice since my internet is transfer-volume-limited (I can only up- and download 3 GB a month). If I can keep unwanted commercials out the volume will be reaching its limit later. Do you happen to know if Safari can block Flash with the ability to allow it in a user controlled way? > >Little Snitch 2.1.4 (THIS may slow things down) > > Yea, it does. I might get rid of that too. But I like it so much. (I'm using the Demo mode on all my other Macs.) [OT] Did you know? -- Little Snitch is a product of Austria. > >I've skipped Windows Media Components for Quicktime 2.3.0.14, since the > > 350 MHz G3 won't be able to play WMV files anyway. > > Flip4Mac does pretty well, actually. I've got a lot of wmv files > that play fine on my Smurf. And having it installed lets you > transcode them with ffmpeg. I won't be watching much. I've tried a HD WMV on my Dual-800 QS and the performance was way too low. So I figured to skip it on the G3 as well. Off course, HD is much more than normal resolutions. Gladly I don't have much WMV files around. > >When I say that it's slow I'm comparing it to my G4 Dual-800 which is > > feeling responsive. The G3 B&W 350 MHz lets me wait a lot, e.g. when I > > start typing I can see the letters on the screen one or two seconds later > > until it finished loading (the HDD is working a lot), thereafter it > > starts acting "normal" i.e. without delay. This is even so when it > > already finished loading = sitting there for some time waiting for me > > doing something with it. > > You should NOT be experiencing any typeahead delays. > > It's possible that Spotlight's indexing is dragging you down. This should be a temporary issue, right? > How much memory does the system have? It has 640 MB (3x 128 MB and 1x 256 MB DIMMs). If I can get hands on additional 256 MB DIMMs they'll go in there until I reach the 1 GB. > >Internet browsing feels a lot slower too compared to the Dual-QS. But that > > was expected. The speed is okay for what I do. Watching YouTube videos > > isn't a good idea though, as almost 23 out of 24 frames are skipped > > (subjective feeling, don't let me quote a reliable source on this!). > > Firefox is noticeably slower than Safari 4. And both can be dragged > to their knees by Flash. > > WRT YouTube... Videos are either Flash or H.264. Flash is a slow > pig. And Apple's H.264 codec is horrible. It really needs a G4 or > better. Yes, so I noticed. I installed Flash just for the completeness. I don't watch Flash stuff so much at work. > >> PowerPC based Macs, both desktop and laptop *RUN*. With few > >> exceptions, they are VERY reliable. You give them a task and they DO > >> it. Almost forever. > > > >I am very certain that this is true. The PowerPC architecture was more > > robust than the newer Intel design is. Intels have a lot of legacy > > "features" to carry along, which doesn't make the design overall better. > > Nothing to do with the processor architecture. This is about > manufacturing quality -- Intel parts are cheap for a reason. I cannot comment that because I just don't know. I have a Pentium III 600 MHz PC running still (if I switch it on again, it's in the cellar; worked still a view months ago). This baby should be about 12+ years old now. One thing is certain though: Intel gave the Macs the performance boost to compete the PCs again. I don't blame Apple for that. It just would have been nice of Apple to extend support for Tiger (Classic) and Leopard (Mac OS X on PowerPC) due to this. Concerning the G5s I would have expected Apple to make Mac OS X truely 64-bit for the PowerPC. G5s are wasted in this matter, since even Leopard is only partly 64-bit capable and truely a 32-bit operating system. But I guess that wouldn't have been a winning situation for Apple -- to invest resources (programming hours) in a dropped platform (the PowerPC). Thanks for you constructive help, Andreas aka Mac User #330250 -- You received this message because you are a member of G-Group, a group for those using G3, G4, and G5 desktop Macs - with a particular focus on Power Macs. The list FAQ is at http://lowendmac.com/lists/g-list.shtml and our netiquette guide is at http://www.lowendmac.com/lists/netiquette.shtml To post to this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/g3-5-list
