At 9:27 PM -0500 10/29/2008, Kris Tilford wrote:
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.
What about Spotlight - did you have its indexing disabled on all volumes?
- Dan.
--
On Oct 30, 2008, at 9:50 AM, Dan wrote:
What about Spotlight - did you have its indexing disabled on all
volumes?
No. Spotlight wasn't disabled, but it was also not indexing.
I should have also commented that the CPU overhead of Leopard was
about 2% higher than Tiger. Tiger was about 5%
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%
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?
I found that the Leopard is optimized for X86 Macs, using mostly X86
coding
whereas the 10.4.11 Tiger is optimized
