Re: Leopard or Tiger?
I have upgraded to Leopard on a newer machine,and I noticed the slower speed right away myself. Roger --- On Mon, 12/7/09, Richard Gerome onecoolka...@earthlink.net wrote: From: Richard Gerome onecoolka...@earthlink.net Subject: Re: Leopard or Tiger? To: g3-5-list@googlegroups.com Date: Monday, December 7, 2009, 7:12 AM I think you would be better off with Tiger??? Based on my experience in the past when you go up to the next OS it tends to slow it down. roup/g3-5-list -- 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 g3-5-list@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/g3-5-list
Re: Leopard or Tiger?
On Dec 16, 2009, at 11:00 AM, Roger Kulp wrote: I have upgraded to Leopard on a newer machine,and I noticed the slower speed right away myself. Roger --- On Mon, 12/7/09, Richard Gerome onecoolka...@earthlink.net wrote: From: Richard Gerome onecoolka...@earthlink.net Subject: Re: Leopard or Tiger? To: g3-5-list@googlegroups.com Date: Monday, December 7, 2009, 7:12 AM I think you would be better off with Tiger??? Based on my experience in the past when you go up to the next OS it tends to slow it down. roup/g3-5-list What machine did you upgrade? How much RAM do you have? John wtmm= -- 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 g3-5-list@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/g3-5-list
Re: Leopard or Tiger?
On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 8:49 PM, Kris Tilford ktilfo...@cox.net wrote: I don't agree with this article. My experience is that the hit on performance is closer to the 15-20% range for any PPC Mac running Leopard as compared to the faster Tiger. I have only tried 10.5 on a single PowerPC Mac - my 20 iMac G5 - but the machine felt significantly slower under 10.5 than with 10.4. Not massively but I agree, 10% orso sounds plausible to me. Unfortunately, on my 10.4-only iBook G4, I am starting to find apps that only support 10.5+ now - such as Growl. I may be forced to upgrade just to be able keep my apps current. :¬( I'd go with 10.4 for any PPC box, unless the latest versions of the apps you want don't run under it. Obviously, if you need Classic, it has to be 10.4. EXACTLY! And this is the problem with the article you cited above. The comparison was done on the same Mac, BUT, the problem is that only one HD was used, and it was a triple booting (three partitions) of one single HD. The difference between partitions on one HD can be in the 10-15% or greater range, so if the Leopard OS was on a fast partition and the Tiger on a slow partition, the results would be skewed. In order to do a valid comparison you'd need to install a clean OS onto one HD or partition and run the test; then erase that HD or partition and install the other OS onto the SAME HD or partition and rerun the test. I believe if you run the tests on IDENTICAL setups you'll see that Leopard is 15-20% slower than Tiger. I agree, in principle, but I have to say, from my own benchmarking days - back when I did performance evaluation for a living, 13-14y ago - position of stuff on disk made no measurable difference in tests. Yes, it's a theoretical factor, but in practice, the difference was too small to measure. That means, on my old tests, 0.1% difference. I think perhaps it may be like Windows 7 versus Vista. Win7 has been heavily tuned for responsiveness and everyone who uses it tends to say that it *feels* faster than before, but actually, in benchmark tests, actually Vista tends to win. Benchmarks do not measure how responsive a system feels, they measure the raw execution speed of apps or processes, so they tend to penalise multi-core machines and so on. -- Liam Proven • Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/liamproven Email: lpro...@cix.co.uk • GMail/GoogleTalk/Orkut: lpro...@gmail.com Tel: +44 20-8685-0498 • Cell: +44 7939-087884 • Fax: + 44 870-9151419 AOL/AIM/iChat/Yahoo/Skype: liamproven • LiveJournal/Twitter: lproven MSN: lpro...@hotmail.com • ICQ: 73187508 -- 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 g3-5-list@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/g3-5-list
Re: Leopard or Tiger?
At 3:24 PM + 12/8/2009, Liam Proven wrote: Unfortunately, on my 10.4-only iBook G4, I am starting to find apps that only support 10.5+ now - such as Growl. I may be forced to upgrade just to be able keep my apps current. :¬( Growl is a bad example. The 1.1.6 release (demon and panel) works just fine on Tiger and will continue to do so. Their recent update push error notwithstanding, the new 1.2.x frameworks being distributed to developers will talk to 1.1.6 just fine. It's just the 1.2 demon and panel that requires Leopard and newer - and it doesn't really add any capabilities to the mix. To make it seem more complicated, they are having some short-term problems, because the frameworks their current 1.2.0 developer distribution can crash on Tiger (in apps that support Tiger and newer). They're fixin that right now, tho. A better example is Firefox. The upcoming 3.6 is the last that will run on Tiger. For 3.7 and it's bazillion new features, the developer team has already updated to Apple's newer frameworks, that require Leopard or SL. - Dan. -- - Psychoceramic Emeritus; South Jersey, USA, Earth. -- 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 g3-5-list@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/g3-5-list
Re: Leopard or Tiger?
On Dec 7, 3:49 pm, Kris Tilford ktilfo...@cox.net wrote: On Dec 7, 2009, at 2:02 PM, Stewie de Young wrote: On one of the LEM articles someone put Tiger and Leopard on the same G4 Powerbook ( 1.4Ghz from memory ) and using benchmarking tests found that Leopard slowed it down by only 4% - hardly noticeable in my opinion. That would be this article: http://lowendmac.com/ed/royal/09sr/leopard-vs-tiger.html wherein Simon ran a basic benchmark on stock Tiger and Leopard on a 867-MHz PB. I don't agree with this article. My experience is that the hit on performance is closer to the 15-20% range for any PPC Mac running Leopard as compared to the faster Tiger. I believe my estimate is born out by the archived results on both xBench Geekbench. And I don't agree too, but in the other direction. The benchmarks are correct - Leopard *with* all it's extra services running is a bit slower than Tiger. Depending on where it is in the cycles (Spotlight indexing, creating coverflow previews, etc), it's anywhere from a few percent slower to perhaps 20%. Of course, you can say the same thing *stock* Tiger vs Panther, with its services. But hey - We Are Robin Hood^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H LEM! We slap advanced stuff on older hardware then tune it a bit. Turn off or de-prioritize the features that are pigging you down. The benchmarks one of my clients ran, using Power Mac G4s and Mac Pros, showed that Leopard's kernel and frameworks were 5 to 10% *faster* than Tiger's. It wasn't until they turned on the other services that things slowed. Even the fastest car slows down when the dog has its head out the window. it should be noted that Intel Macs are the opposite, they are faster for Leopard and slower for Tiger. That's because Tiger's x86 support was a slap-on kludgy mess. When you turn off the extra services, so as to compare kernel to kernel, the difference is narrowed quite a bit. I put a new 7200RPM drive in my Pismo and at a rough guess I would say it made it 10-15% faster. Yea, as you would expect, accepting the extra power usage. EXACTLY! And this is the problem with the article you cited above. The comparison was done on the same Mac, BUT, the problem is that only one HD was used, and it was a triple booting (three partitions) of one single HD. The difference between partitions on one HD can be in the 10-15% or greater range, so if the Leopard OS was on a fast partition and the Tiger on a slow partition, the results would be skewed. Sorry, I don't buy that. Given basic head motion and read optimizations etc... Unless something is badly screwed up, the access difference between two partitions should be less than 1%. Even less so when the other partition is idle and the HD isn't cycled (head parked, spun down, spun up, ...). Bottom line, IMO: Leopard runs quite well on a 17 1.33GHz Powerbook G4 (the original subject of this thread). And since newer software will require Leopard - it's just not worth the time/effort of doing Tiger. - Dan. -- - Psychoceramic Emeritus; South Jersey, USA, Earth. -- 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 g3-5-list@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/g3-5-list
Re: Leopard or Tiger?
Where primarily are you going to be using your PowerBook? With all versions of OSX, disk use is heavy and HD read/write times have a bigger effect on responsiveness than just about anything else, even RAM, assuming you have enough. If your PowerBook will be spending most of the time sitting on your desk rather than traveling, you might consider booting off an external FW800 3.5 hard disk. This could be noticeably faster than your internal 2.5 HD, depending on its age. On Dec 7, 7:39 am, mythmaker18 mythmake...@yahoo.com wrote: The drive already has Tiger on it (and I've already run 'disable Tiger features' and stripped out the unnecessary languages, G3 support, etc for optimisation), so I may stick with that. By the way, I put a 5400 in there rather than looking for a 7200 because some people online seemed to be of the opinion that the 7200 drives might run a bit hot in these 'books and may also to cause battery life to take a hit. At least it's not the original slower drive... As for newer OSes generally being slower, maybe it's just me, but with OSX, I've generally found 10.4 to be a lot faster on my machines than 10.3, so that's pretty much why I was asking the question, since although this has been true for me in the past, I wasn't so sure 10.5 would give any speed gain (due to the use of Core), despite this 'book being within the acceptable specs to do an install. And I'm just now realising I probably should've posted this in the G4 'books forum. Clicked the wrong button in my favourites bar! I don't imagine putting 10.5 on my Digital Audio 733 G4 would be such a great idea, eh, even though it's got maxed RAM and a 7200 rpm drive? Guess it also depends on video card and that's a whole other ball of wax (I don't have the stock card installed: it's a GeForce 2mx or 4mx, I think, whatever the stock card was in the dual 867MHz Quicksilvers). Andy On Dec 7, 9:12 am, Richard Gerome onecoolka...@earthlink.net wrote: I think you would be better off with Tiger??? Based on my experience in the past when you go up to the next OS it tends to slow it down... I would hang on to the Leopard disc just in case you start having trouble with Tiger but I don't see this anytime soon... I would max out the memory though if you are looking for more speed and performance!!! -Original Message- From: mythmaker18 mythmake...@yahoo.com Sent: Dec 7, 2009 8:41 AM To: G-Group g3-5-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Leopard or Tiger? I recently purchased a 17 1.33GHz Powerbook G4 (Aluminum) and was wondering which would be the best (as far as speed/responsiveness) OS to install on this Mac: 10.4 or 10.5? I have install discs for both. I will be moving over a 5400RPM drive and will be installing between 1.5 and 2GB of RAM. Speed is more important to me than simply being more current. Thanks for your opinions. Andy -- 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 athttp://lowendmac.com/lists/g-list.shtmlandour netiquette guide is athttp://www.lowendmac.com/lists/netiquette.shtml To post to this group, send email to g3-5-list@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/g3-5-list -- 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 g3-5-list@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/g3-5-list
RE: Leopard or Tiger?
Even the fastest car slows down when the dog has its head out the window. Hahaha - love the analogy Dan ! Stewie Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2009 11:37:40 -0500 To: g3-5-list@googlegroups.com From: dantear...@gmail.com Subject: Re: Leopard or Tiger? On Dec 7, 3:49 pm, Kris Tilford ktilfo...@cox.net wrote: On Dec 7, 2009, at 2:02 PM, Stewie de Young wrote: On one of the LEM articles someone put Tiger and Leopard on the same G4 Powerbook ( 1.4Ghz from memory ) and using benchmarking tests found that Leopard slowed it down by only 4% - hardly noticeable in my opinion. That would be this article: http://lowendmac.com/ed/royal/09sr/leopard-vs-tiger.html wherein Simon ran a basic benchmark on stock Tiger and Leopard on a 867-MHz PB. I don't agree with this article. My experience is that the hit on performance is closer to the 15-20% range for any PPC Mac running Leopard as compared to the faster Tiger. I believe my estimate is born out by the archived results on both xBench Geekbench. And I don't agree too, but in the other direction. The benchmarks are correct - Leopard *with* all it's extra services running is a bit slower than Tiger. Depending on where it is in the cycles (Spotlight indexing, creating coverflow previews, etc), it's anywhere from a few percent slower to perhaps 20%. Of course, you can say the same thing *stock* Tiger vs Panther, with its services. But hey - We Are Robin Hood^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H LEM! We slap advanced stuff on older hardware then tune it a bit. Turn off or de-prioritize the features that are pigging you down. The benchmarks one of my clients ran, using Power Mac G4s and Mac Pros, showed that Leopard's kernel and frameworks were 5 to 10% *faster* than Tiger's. It wasn't until they turned on the other services that things slowed. Even the fastest car slows down when the dog has its head out the window. it should be noted that Intel Macs are the opposite, they are faster for Leopard and slower for Tiger. That's because Tiger's x86 support was a slap-on kludgy mess. When you turn off the extra services, so as to compare kernel to kernel, the difference is narrowed quite a bit. I put a new 7200RPM drive in my Pismo and at a rough guess I would say it made it 10-15% faster. Yea, as you would expect, accepting the extra power usage. EXACTLY! And this is the problem with the article you cited above. The comparison was done on the same Mac, BUT, the problem is that only one HD was used, and it was a triple booting (three partitions) of one single HD. The difference between partitions on one HD can be in the 10-15% or greater range, so if the Leopard OS was on a fast partition and the Tiger on a slow partition, the results would be skewed. Sorry, I don't buy that. Given basic head motion and read optimizations etc... Unless something is badly screwed up, the access difference between two partitions should be less than 1%. Even less so when the other partition is idle and the HD isn't cycled (head parked, spun down, spun up, ...). Bottom line, IMO: Leopard runs quite well on a 17 1.33GHz Powerbook G4 (the original subject of this thread). And since newer software will require Leopard - it's just not worth the time/effort of doing Tiger. - Dan. -- - Psychoceramic Emeritus; South Jersey, USA, Earth. -- 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 g3-5-list@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/g3-5-list _ Get more out of Hotmail Check out the latest features today http://windowslive.ninemsn.com.au/hotmail/article/878466/your-hotmail-is-about-to-get-even-better -- 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 g3-5-list@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/g3-5-list
Leopard or Tiger?
I recently purchased a 17 1.33GHz Powerbook G4 (Aluminum) and was wondering which would be the best (as far as speed/responsiveness) OS to install on this Mac: 10.4 or 10.5? I have install discs for both. I will be moving over a 5400RPM drive and will be installing between 1.5 and 2GB of RAM. Speed is more important to me than simply being more current. Thanks for your opinions. Andy -- 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 g3-5-list@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/g3-5-list
Re: Leopard or Tiger?
I believe you'll find Tiger somewhat more responsive, but do watch for S/W (apps/utilities) requirements etc. Enjoy it Ted --- On Mon, 7/12/09, mythmaker18 mythmake...@yahoo.com wrote: From: mythmaker18 mythmake...@yahoo.com Subject: Leopard or Tiger? To: G-Group g3-5-list@googlegroups.com Date: Monday, 7 December, 2009, 13:41 I recently purchased a 17 1.33GHz Powerbook G4 (Aluminum) and was wondering which would be the best (as far as speed/responsiveness) OS to install on this Mac: 10.4 or 10.5? I have install discs for both. I will be moving over a 5400RPM drive and will be installing between 1.5 and 2GB of RAM. Speed is more important to me than simply being more current. Thanks for your opinions. Andy -- 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 g3-5-list@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/g3-5-list -- 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 g3-5-list@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/g3-5-list
Re: Leopard or Tiger?
Chose 7200 rpm drive... instead of large and slow 5400 if you looking every inch responsiveness... I am using a 1.67 Powerbook 15 inch Hi-Res with 10.5. In my opinion never fall 2 version behind if you use the system in working computer. So 10.5 is okey for to use it. Just disable some selectable 3D appereance menus and dashboard... Go directly 2 GB memory... Withy 2 GB memory i can use CS4 application other than Video applications good and infact in production environment for web. But yes it is slugshy a little but good for mobile working environment. Speed diffrence of two system is raughly %5, max %8... With 7200 rpm drive and 2 GB memory it will be ok i guess. 2009/12/7 mythmaker18 mythmake...@yahoo.com I recently purchased a 17 1.33GHz Powerbook G4 (Aluminum) and was wondering which would be the best (as far as speed/responsiveness) OS to install on this Mac: 10.4 or 10.5? I have install discs for both. I will be moving over a 5400RPM drive and will be installing between 1.5 and 2GB of RAM. Speed is more important to me than simply being more current. Thanks for your opinions. Andy -- 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 g3-5-list@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/g3-5-list -- Baha Ata -- 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 g3-5-list@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/g3-5-list
Re: Leopard or Tiger?
I think you would be better off with Tiger??? Based on my experience in the past when you go up to the next OS it tends to slow it down... I would hang on to the Leopard disc just in case you start having trouble with Tiger but I don't see this anytime soon... I would max out the memory though if you are looking for more speed and performance!!! -Original Message- From: mythmaker18 mythmake...@yahoo.com Sent: Dec 7, 2009 8:41 AM To: G-Group g3-5-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Leopard or Tiger? I recently purchased a 17 1.33GHz Powerbook G4 (Aluminum) and was wondering which would be the best (as far as speed/responsiveness) OS to install on this Mac: 10.4 or 10.5? I have install discs for both. I will be moving over a 5400RPM drive and will be installing between 1.5 and 2GB of RAM. Speed is more important to me than simply being more current. Thanks for your opinions. Andy -- 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 g3-5-list@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/g3-5-list -- 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 g3-5-list@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/g3-5-list
Re: Leopard or Tiger?
mythmaker18 wrote: I recently purchased a 17 1.33GHz Powerbook G4 (Aluminum) and was wondering which would be the best (as far as speed/responsiveness) OS to install on this Mac: 10.4 or 10.5? I have install discs for both. I will be moving over a 5400RPM drive and will be installing between 1.5 and 2GB of RAM. Speed is more important to me than simply being more current. Thanks for your opinions. Andy You will get better answers on the correct list. This list is for towers/desktops. Try the G4 book list. http://groups.google.com/group/g4books -- 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 g3-5-list@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/g3-5-list
Re: Leopard or Tiger?
The drive already has Tiger on it (and I've already run 'disable Tiger features' and stripped out the unnecessary languages, G3 support, etc for optimisation), so I may stick with that. By the way, I put a 5400 in there rather than looking for a 7200 because some people online seemed to be of the opinion that the 7200 drives might run a bit hot in these 'books and may also to cause battery life to take a hit. At least it's not the original slower drive... As for newer OSes generally being slower, maybe it's just me, but with OSX, I've generally found 10.4 to be a lot faster on my machines than 10.3, so that's pretty much why I was asking the question, since although this has been true for me in the past, I wasn't so sure 10.5 would give any speed gain (due to the use of Core), despite this 'book being within the acceptable specs to do an install. And I'm just now realising I probably should've posted this in the G4 'books forum. Clicked the wrong button in my favourites bar! I don't imagine putting 10.5 on my Digital Audio 733 G4 would be such a great idea, eh, even though it's got maxed RAM and a 7200 rpm drive? Guess it also depends on video card and that's a whole other ball of wax (I don't have the stock card installed: it's a GeForce 2mx or 4mx, I think, whatever the stock card was in the dual 867MHz Quicksilvers). Andy On Dec 7, 9:12 am, Richard Gerome onecoolka...@earthlink.net wrote: I think you would be better off with Tiger??? Based on my experience in the past when you go up to the next OS it tends to slow it down... I would hang on to the Leopard disc just in case you start having trouble with Tiger but I don't see this anytime soon... I would max out the memory though if you are looking for more speed and performance!!! -Original Message- From: mythmaker18 mythmake...@yahoo.com Sent: Dec 7, 2009 8:41 AM To: G-Group g3-5-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Leopard or Tiger? I recently purchased a 17 1.33GHz Powerbook G4 (Aluminum) and was wondering which would be the best (as far as speed/responsiveness) OS to install on this Mac: 10.4 or 10.5? I have install discs for both. I will be moving over a 5400RPM drive and will be installing between 1.5 and 2GB of RAM. Speed is more important to me than simply being more current. Thanks for your opinions. Andy -- 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 athttp://lowendmac.com/lists/g-list.shtmland our netiquette guide is athttp://www.lowendmac.com/lists/netiquette.shtml To post to this group, send email to g3-5-list@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/g3-5-list -- 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 g3-5-list@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/g3-5-list
Re: Leopard or Tiger?
In my expreince and readings at most %8 speed difference and generally %5 speed difference inbetween 10.4 and 10.5. Even i try 10.4 on my powerbook after i install 10.5 because of recovery and returned back 10.5. I fell no difference in gui ( I always disable transparent dock and dashboard applications). I am using probably exactly same 5600 drive or 5400... Seagate Barracuda. But if i will go to buy i will definetly go to 7200 drive. Max out ram, your ATI 64 MB and includes every core aspects. Simpy even for Filezilla i rather choose 10.5. And 10.5 is a current system. 10.6 is just fixation. 2009/12/7 mythmaker18 mythmake...@yahoo.com The drive already has Tiger on it (and I've already run 'disable Tiger features' and stripped out the unnecessary languages, G3 support, etc for optimisation), so I may stick with that. By the way, I put a 5400 in there rather than looking for a 7200 because some people online seemed to be of the opinion that the 7200 drives might run a bit hot in these 'books and may also to cause battery life to take a hit. At least it's not the original slower drive... As for newer OSes generally being slower, maybe it's just me, but with OSX, I've generally found 10.4 to be a lot faster on my machines than 10.3, so that's pretty much why I was asking the question, since although this has been true for me in the past, I wasn't so sure 10.5 would give any speed gain (due to the use of Core), despite this 'book being within the acceptable specs to do an install. And I'm just now realising I probably should've posted this in the G4 'books forum. Clicked the wrong button in my favourites bar! I don't imagine putting 10.5 on my Digital Audio 733 G4 would be such a great idea, eh, even though it's got maxed RAM and a 7200 rpm drive? Guess it also depends on video card and that's a whole other ball of wax (I don't have the stock card installed: it's a GeForce 2mx or 4mx, I think, whatever the stock card was in the dual 867MHz Quicksilvers). Andy On Dec 7, 9:12 am, Richard Gerome onecoolka...@earthlink.net wrote: I think you would be better off with Tiger??? Based on my experience in the past when you go up to the next OS it tends to slow it down... I would hang on to the Leopard disc just in case you start having trouble with Tiger but I don't see this anytime soon... I would max out the memory though if you are looking for more speed and performance!!! -Original Message- From: mythmaker18 mythmake...@yahoo.com Sent: Dec 7, 2009 8:41 AM To: G-Group g3-5-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Leopard or Tiger? I recently purchased a 17 1.33GHz Powerbook G4 (Aluminum) and was wondering which would be the best (as far as speed/responsiveness) OS to install on this Mac: 10.4 or 10.5? I have install discs for both. I will be moving over a 5400RPM drive and will be installing between 1.5 and 2GB of RAM. Speed is more important to me than simply being more current. Thanks for your opinions. Andy -- 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 athttp://lowendmac.com/lists/g-list.shtmland our netiquette guide is athttp://www.lowendmac.com/lists/netiquette.shtml To post to this group, send email to g3-5-list@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group athttp:// groups.google.com/group/g3-5-list -- 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 g3-5-list@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/g3-5-list -- Baha Ata -- 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 g3-5-list@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/g3-5-list
RE: Leopard or Tiger?
I put a new 7200RPM drive in my Pismo and at a rough guess I would say it made it 10-15% faster. On one of the LEM articles someone put Tiger and Leopard on the same G4 Powerbook ( 1.4Ghz from memory ) and using benchmarking tests found that Leopard slowed it down by only 4% - hardly noticeable in my opinion. Stewie Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2009 06:39:17 -0800 Subject: Re: Leopard or Tiger? From: mythmake...@yahoo.com To: g3-5-list@googlegroups.com The drive already has Tiger on it (and I've already run 'disable Tiger features' and stripped out the unnecessary languages, G3 support, etc for optimisation), so I may stick with that. By the way, I put a 5400 in there rather than looking for a 7200 because some people online seemed to be of the opinion that the 7200 drives might run a bit hot in these 'books and may also to cause battery life to take a hit. At least it's not the original slower drive... As for newer OSes generally being slower, maybe it's just me, but with OSX, I've generally found 10.4 to be a lot faster on my machines than 10.3, so that's pretty much why I was asking the question, since although this has been true for me in the past, I wasn't so sure 10.5 would give any speed gain (due to the use of Core), despite this 'book being within the acceptable specs to do an install. And I'm just now realising I probably should've posted this in the G4 'books forum. Clicked the wrong button in my favourites bar! I don't imagine putting 10.5 on my Digital Audio 733 G4 would be such a great idea, eh, even though it's got maxed RAM and a 7200 rpm drive? Guess it also depends on video card and that's a whole other ball of wax (I don't have the stock card installed: it's a GeForce 2mx or 4mx, I think, whatever the stock card was in the dual 867MHz Quicksilvers). Andy On Dec 7, 9:12 am, Richard Gerome onecoolka...@earthlink.net wrote: I think you would be better off with Tiger??? Based on my experience in the past when you go up to the next OS it tends to slow it down... I would hang on to the Leopard disc just in case you start having trouble with Tiger but I don't see this anytime soon... I would max out the memory though if you are looking for more speed and performance!!! -Original Message- From: mythmaker18 mythmake...@yahoo.com Sent: Dec 7, 2009 8:41 AM To: G-Group g3-5-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Leopard or Tiger? I recently purchased a 17 1.33GHz Powerbook G4 (Aluminum) and was wondering which would be the best (as far as speed/responsiveness) OS to install on this Mac: 10.4 or 10.5? I have install discs for both. I will be moving over a 5400RPM drive and will be installing between 1.5 and 2GB of RAM. Speed is more important to me than simply being more current. Thanks for your opinions. Andy -- 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 athttp://lowendmac.com/lists/g-list.shtmland our netiquette guide is athttp://www.lowendmac.com/lists/netiquette.shtml To post to this group, send email to g3-5-list@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/g3-5-list -- 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 g3-5-list@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/g3-5-list _ Use Messenger in your Hotmail inbox Find out how http://windowslive.ninemsn.com.au/hotmail/article/823454/web-im-for-hotmail-is-here -- 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 g3-5-list@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/g3-5-list
Re: Leopard or Tiger?
On Dec 7, 2009, at 2:02 PM, Stewie de Young wrote: On one of the LEM articles someone put Tiger and Leopard on the same G4 Powerbook ( 1.4Ghz from memory ) and using benchmarking tests found that Leopard slowed it down by only 4% - hardly noticeable in my opinion. That would be this article: http://lowendmac.com/ed/royal/09sr/leopard-vs-tiger.html I don't agree with this article. My experience is that the hit on performance is closer to the 15-20% range for any PPC Mac running Leopard as compared to the faster Tiger. I believe my estimate is born out by the archived results on both xBench Geekbench. Also, it should be noted that Intel Macs are the opposite, they are faster for Leopard and slower for Tiger. I put a new 7200RPM drive in my Pismo and at a rough guess I would say it made it 10-15% faster. EXACTLY! And this is the problem with the article you cited above. The comparison was done on the same Mac, BUT, the problem is that only one HD was used, and it was a triple booting (three partitions) of one single HD. The difference between partitions on one HD can be in the 10-15% or greater range, so if the Leopard OS was on a fast partition and the Tiger on a slow partition, the results would be skewed. In order to do a valid comparison you'd need to install a clean OS onto one HD or partition and run the test; then erase that HD or partition and install the other OS onto the SAME HD or partition and rerun the test. I believe if you run the tests on IDENTICAL setups you'll see that Leopard is 15-20% slower than Tiger. -- 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 g3-5-list@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/g3-5-list
Re: Leopard or Tiger?
EXACTLY! And this is the problem with the article you cited above. The comparison was done on the same Mac, BUT, the problem is that only one HD was used, and it was a triple booting (three partitions) of one single HD. The difference between partitions on one HD can be in the 10-15% or greater range, so if the Leopard OS was on a fast partition and the Tiger on a slow partition, the results would be skewed. In order to do a valid comparison you'd need to install a clean OS onto one HD or partition and run the test; then erase that HD or partition and install the other OS onto the SAME HD or partition and rerun the test. I believe if you run the tests on IDENTICAL setups you'll see that Leopard is 15-20% slower than Tiger. I would have to agree with this thread above!!! ^^^ I went through this on my G3 Clamshell iBook when I went from Jaguar to Panther so I cleaned it and reinstalled Jaguar!!! So I bought a G4 Titanium Powerbook 1ghz and 1g ram running Tiger!!! -Original Message- From: Kris Tilford ktilfo...@cox.net Sent: Dec 7, 2009 3:49 PM To: g3-5-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Leopard or Tiger? e is at http://www.lowendmac.com/lists/netiquette.shtml To post to this group, send email to g3-5-list@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/g3-5-list -- 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 g3-5-list@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/g3-5-list
RE: Leopard or Tiger?
Well maybe that is your experience Kris but the three people I have spoken to since have said Leopard ran 1) as fast as Tiger on a MDD dual 1GHz ( not faster but then not slower either ) 2) noticeably slower on a MDD single1.25 GHz 3) noticeably faster on a Powerbook 1.33 GHz All these were fresh installs after reformatting on the same hard drive and the same (mostly already maxxed) Ram. Why faster on a powerbook than a desktop ? Beats me. I think it can come down to individual models too. Leopard may just not like certain configurations although that flies in the face of most logic. Certainly none of this would put me off installing Leopard over Tiger on a PPC Mac. Besides try it for a while and if you don't like it, wipe the HD and reinstall Tiger. As for my Pismo , well I stand by my claim that it appears 10-15% faster with the newer faster HD. Note this had nothing to do with L vs T in my case but just straight performance gains in the same OS as a comparison. Tiger on my old 12Gb HD ( 5400 RPM ? )was slow but much improved in the new 7200RPM HD. Stewie From: ktilfo...@cox.net To: g3-5-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Leopard or Tiger? Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2009 14:49:00 -0600 On Dec 7, 2009, at 2:02 PM, Stewie de Young wrote: On one of the LEM articles someone put Tiger and Leopard on the same G4 Powerbook ( 1.4Ghz from memory ) and using benchmarking tests found that Leopard slowed it down by only 4% - hardly noticeable in my opinion. That would be this article: http://lowendmac.com/ed/royal/09sr/leopard-vs-tiger.html I don't agree with this article. My experience is that the hit on performance is closer to the 15-20% range for any PPC Mac running Leopard as compared to the faster Tiger. I believe my estimate is born out by the archived results on both xBench Geekbench. Also, it should be noted that Intel Macs are the opposite, they are faster for Leopard and slower for Tiger. I put a new 7200RPM drive in my Pismo and at a rough guess I would say it made it 10-15% faster. EXACTLY! And this is the problem with the article you cited above. The comparison was done on the same Mac, BUT, the problem is that only one HD was used, and it was a triple booting (three partitions) of one single HD. The difference between partitions on one HD can be in the 10-15% or greater range, so if the Leopard OS was on a fast partition and the Tiger on a slow partition, the results would be skewed. In order to do a valid comparison you'd need to install a clean OS onto one HD or partition and run the test; then erase that HD or partition and install the other OS onto the SAME HD or partition and rerun the test. I believe if you run the tests on IDENTICAL setups you'll see that Leopard is 15-20% slower than Tiger. -- 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 g3-5-list@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/g3-5-list _ If It Exists, You'll Find it on SEEK Australia's #1 job site http://clk.atdmt.com/NMN/go/157639755/direct/01/ -- 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 g3-5-list@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/g3-5-list
Re: Leopard or Tiger?
On Dec 7, 2009, at 6:50 PM, Stewie de Young wrote: Besides try it for a while and if you don't like it, wipe the HD and reinstall Tiger. Yes, this is exactly what I've had to do for a friend whose aluminum PowerBook G4 1.67 GHz was too slow with Photoshop under Leopard 10.5.8 and very useable under Tiger 10.4.11. Since I was doing the work for free, I argued strenuously against the downgrade, but when I saw the difference in performance myself, it led to me investigating this using the xBench and Geekbench archives, as well as doing my own comparisons on my G5 desktop. I'm convinced that Leopard is enough slower to notice the difference, but in my case, I've chosen to stick with Leopard on my G5 for now, mostly because of the difficulty of downgrading since I've installed many Leopard only apps that would also need downgrading. I can't see much progress in OS X between 10.4.11 and 10.6.2. Spaces Time Machine are the two biggies, both of which I can live without. Leopard is the ONLY universal version of OS X, and it seems both bloated and slow(er) for PPC Macs. You can strip out the Intel code bloat using Monolingual, but that doesn't help the speed any. -- 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 g3-5-list@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/g3-5-list
Performance of Leopard or Tiger Server on a PowerMac G4
I'm looking to make a Mac based file server. I'm wondering if PowerMac G4 Sawtooth or QS would he enough to run Leopard or Tiger server. Would I be better off with an used Mac mini? Jagger De Leo --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed Low End Mac's G3-5 List, 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 g3-5-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to g3-5-list-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/g3-5-list?hl=en Low End Mac RSS feed at feed://lowendmac.com/feed.xml -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Performance of Leopard or Tiger Server on a PowerMac G4
I have run Mac OS 10.4 Server on a Dual 500MHZ G4 Gigabit Ethernet, and a single 533MHZ G4 Digital Audio. While I haven't attempted to run Leopard on either for a server OS, 10.4 Server has run great. I am currently running it on a Dual 867MHZ G4 MDD. I have heard that regular 10.4 runs 10 - 15% faster on ppc processors than leopard. -Jonas On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 6:43 AM, Jagger De Leo jagger27@gmail.comwrote: I'm looking to make a Mac based file server. I'm wondering if PowerMac G4 Sawtooth or QS would he enough to run Leopard or Tiger server. Would I be better off with an used Mac mini? Jagger De Leo --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed Low End Mac's G3-5 List, 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 g3-5-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to g3-5-list-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/g3-5-list?hl=en Low End Mac RSS feed at feed://lowendmac.com/feed.xml -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
