f



Mac OS X 10.5/Leopard on an old PowerBook (PPC) G4 1 Ghz with 512 MB of RAM & 60 GB HDD?

Hello,

I have an old PowerBook G4 (PPC) with 1 Ghz CPU speed, 512 MB of RAM, 
and 60 GB of HDD. If I were to do a fresh clean install of Mac OS X 
10.5/Leopard on it (still have 10.2.8 on it and seems fine, just old), 
then how will it perform? Will it be slower? Or should I just wait until 
I get a new Apple notebook/laptop (e.g., MacBook)?

I am a heavy user who likes to run Fink stuff for X11, play hungry power 
games (e.g., MacMAME, Quake 3 Arena and its mods)

Thank you in advance.
-- 
"We may have no malevolent intentions toward an ant heap, but if we want 
to build a house on the same site..." --Rendezvous With Rama
    /\___/\
   / /\ /\ \      Phillip/Ant @ http://antfarm.ma.cx (Personal Web Site)
  | |o   o| |        Ant's Quality Foraged Links (AQFL): http://aqfl.net
     \ _ /       Remove ANT from e-mail address: philpi@earthlink.netANT
      ( )                                           or ANTant@zimage.com
Ant is currently not listening to any songs on his home computer.
0
Ant
10/22/2007 12:45:49 PM
comp.sys.mac.apps 21416 articles. 3 followers. xxx613 (1334) is leader. Post Follow

29 Replies
741 Views

Similar Articles

[PageSpeed] 33

[Note: followups limited to c.s.m.portables]

Ant <ANTant@zimage.com> wrote:

> I have an old PowerBook G4 (PPC) with 1 Ghz CPU speed, 512 MB of RAM,
> and 60 GB of HDD. If I were to do a fresh clean install of Mac OS X 
> 10.5/Leopard on it (still have 10.2.8 on it and seems fine, just old),
> then how will it perform? Will it be slower?

If you only install Leopard and don't do any hardware changes, it will
probably be slower, due to Leopard's increased memory requirements. If
you also install more RAM, it will be faster than 10.2.8.

A 1 GHz PowerBook G4 can be taken up to 1, 1.25 or 2 GB of RAM,
depending on which model you have. Even 1 GB will be a big improvement
over 512 MB.

My experience with later updates of Tiger (10.4) is that it tended to
bog down with 768 MB of RAM on my 667 MHz PowerBook G4, not running
anything heavy duty. The only way to avoid this was to not run too many
applications at the same time, and keep an eye on runaway memory usage
by some applications (particularly Safari) by regularly quitting them. I
expect Leopard will be even hungrier.

768 MB was plenty while I was running Panther (10.3) and in the early
updates of Tiger.

A 60 GB hard drive shouldn't be a problem, but Leopard will take a fair
amount more space than 10.2, so make sure you have plenty of free space
prior to the installation, and keep at least 5 GB free at all times, in
case it is needed for virtual memory or temporary storage.

> Or should I just wait until I get a new Apple notebook/laptop (e.g.,
> MacBook)?

If you are thinking of getting a new laptop, then buying Leopard now
will let you get a head start to becoming familiar with it, but I would
recommend getting more RAM as well. It will also let you run a lot of
newer software that isn't compatible with 10.2.8.

If you are expecting to buy a new laptop soon, the cost of buying
Leopard and RAM may not be worth it: the money would be put to better
use saving up for the new laptop.

Your experience of Leopard will be vastly different between a new laptop
and your old one. I was stunned at how much faster my new MacBook Pro is
compared to my old PowerBook G4.

> I am a heavy user who likes to run Fink stuff for X11, play hungry power
> games (e.g., MacMAME, Quake 3 Arena and its mods)

You might not be able to use a MacBook for some of those. A MacBook Pro
is likely to be a better choice if you are doing anything involving
heavy duty graphics.

-- 
David Empson
dempson@actrix.gen.nz
0
dempson
10/22/2007 1:19:58 PM
In article <471c9b7e$0$25631$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,
 Ant <ANTant@zimage.com> wrote:

> Hello,
> 
> I have an old PowerBook G4 (PPC) with 1 Ghz CPU speed, 512 MB of RAM, 
> and 60 GB of HDD. If I were to do a fresh clean install of Mac OS X 
> 10.5/Leopard on it (still have 10.2.8 on it and seems fine, just old), 
> then how will it perform? Will it be slower? Or should I just wait until 
> I get a new Apple notebook/laptop (e.g., MacBook)?
> 
> I am a heavy user who likes to run Fink stuff for X11, play hungry power 
> games (e.g., MacMAME, Quake 3 Arena and its mods)
> 
> Thank you in advance.

Nobody who knows about Leopard can really say.

That said, on the same hardware most people found 10.3 more responsive 
than 10.2 and, given enough memory, 10.4 better than 10.3 (with the 
caveat that the definition of "enough" changed). I expect that given 
"enough" memory, it's unlikely that 10.5 will lose the gains achieved 
over the last couple of releases.

Leopard's stated memory requirements are higher than Tiger's, and I'd be 
concerned about putting it on a machine with 512MB (the minimum) and a 
notebook hard drive.
0
Gregory
10/22/2007 1:38:54 PM
On 10/22/2007 6:19 AM PT, David Empson typed:

>> I have an old PowerBook G4 (PPC) with 1 Ghz CPU speed, 512 MB of RAM,
>> and 60 GB of HDD. If I were to do a fresh clean install of Mac OS X 
>> 10.5/Leopard on it (still have 10.2.8 on it and seems fine, just old),
>> then how will it perform? Will it be slower?
> 
> If you only install Leopard and don't do any hardware changes, it will
> probably be slower, due to Leopard's increased memory requirements. If
> you also install more RAM, it will be faster than 10.2.8.

Yes, no changes. Not even memory upgrade. I have to remove the old 512 
MB and buy 1 GB or whatever.


> A 1 GHz PowerBook G4 can be taken up to 1, 1.25 or 2 GB of RAM,
> depending on which model you have. Even 1 GB will be a big improvement
> over 512 MB.

I think mine can go only up to 1 GB maximum. RAM is expensive too and 
probably hard to find these days!


> My experience with later updates of Tiger (10.4) is that it tended to
> bog down with 768 MB of RAM on my 667 MHz PowerBook G4, not running
> anything heavy duty. The only way to avoid this was to not run too many
> applications at the same time, and keep an eye on runaway memory usage
> by some applications (particularly Safari) by regularly quitting them. I
> expect Leopard will be even hungrier.

True. I am a heavy mutltiasker. I even use a virtual desktop manager. I 
know the newer OS X versions have its own (Space).


> 768 MB was plenty while I was running Panther (10.3) and in the early
> updates of Tiger.

Hmm, maybe I should get 10.3/10.4 after Leopard is released (probably 
cheaper)?


> A 60 GB hard drive shouldn't be a problem, but Leopard will take a fair
> amount more space than 10.2, so make sure you have plenty of free space
> prior to the installation, and keep at least 5 GB free at all times, in
> case it is needed for virtual memory or temporary storage.

Yeah, but this is a clean install (no upgrade).


>> Or should I just wait until I get a new Apple notebook/laptop (e.g.,
>> MacBook)?
> 
> If you are thinking of getting a new laptop, then buying Leopard now
> will let you get a head start to becoming familiar with it, but I would
> recommend getting more RAM as well. It will also let you run a lot of
> newer software that isn't compatible with 10.2.8.
> 
> If you are expecting to buy a new laptop soon, the cost of buying
> Leopard and RAM may not be worth it: the money would be put to better
> use saving up for the new laptop.

Not that soon. Maybe in a year or more.


> Your experience of Leopard will be vastly different between a new laptop
> and your old one. I was stunned at how much faster my new MacBook Pro is
> compared to my old PowerBook G4.

Nice.


>> I am a heavy user who likes to run Fink stuff for X11, play hungry power
>> games (e.g., MacMAME, Quake 3 Arena and its mods), Neo/OpenOffice, etc.
> 
> You might not be able to use a MacBook for some of those. A MacBook Pro
> is likely to be a better choice if you are doing anything involving
> heavy duty graphics.

Thanks for the insights. I think I will just wait since MacBooks will 
come with Leopard preinstalled.
-- 
"I don't understand them anymore, these people that travel the 
commuter-trains to their dormitory towns. These people call themselves 
human, but, by a pressure they do not feel, are forced to do their work 
like ants. With what do they fill their time when they are free of work 
on their silly little Sundays?" --Antoine de saint-Exup�ry, 'Wind, Sand, 
and Stars,' 1939
    /\___/\
   / /\ /\ \      Phillip/Ant @ http://antfarm.ma.cx (Personal Web Site)
  | |o   o| |        Ant's Quality Foraged Links (AQFL): http://aqfl.net
     \ _ /       Remove ANT from e-mail address: philpi@earthlink.netANT
      ( )                                           or ANTant@zimage.com
Ant is currently not listening to any songs on his home computer.
0
Ant
10/22/2007 1:43:37 PM
On Oct 22, 2007, David Empson wrote:
> If you only install Leopard and don't do any hardware changes, it will
> probably be slower, due to Leopard's increased memory requirements. If
> you also install more RAM, it will be faster than 10.2.8.

I agree. Generally each upgrade of OS X has been a bit faster *IF* it had the 
RAM.

0
Tim
10/22/2007 2:30:15 PM
In article <471c9b7e$0$25631$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,
 Ant <ANTant@zimage.com> wrote:

> I have an old PowerBook G4 (PPC) with 1 Ghz CPU speed, 512 MB of RAM, 
> and 60 GB of HDD. If I were to do a fresh clean install of Mac OS X 
> 10.5/Leopard on it (still have 10.2.8 on it and seems fine, just old), 
> then how will it perform? Will it be slower? Or should I just wait until 
> I get a new Apple notebook/laptop (e.g., MacBook)?
> 
> I am a heavy user who likes to run Fink stuff for X11, play hungry power 
> games (e.g., MacMAME, Quake 3 Arena and its mods)

Since 10.5 isn't actually out yet, all you're going to get is 
speculation. I can tell you, however, that in my experience, Mac OS X 
has generally gotten *faster* rather than slower with each major release 
- especially on older hardware. If that trend continues, I would expect 
10.5 to be faster and more efficient on your Powerbook.

-- 
Note: Please send all responses to the relevant news group. If you 
must contact me through e-mail, let me know when you send email to 
this address so that your email doesn't get eaten by my SPAM filter.

JR
0
Jolly
10/22/2007 2:34:46 PM
On 10/22/2007 7:34 AM PT, Jolly Roger typed:

>> I have an old PowerBook G4 (PPC) with 1 Ghz CPU speed, 512 MB of RAM, 
>> and 60 GB of HDD. If I were to do a fresh clean install of Mac OS X 
>> 10.5/Leopard on it (still have 10.2.8 on it and seems fine, just old), 
>> then how will it perform? Will it be slower? Or should I just wait until 
>> I get a new Apple notebook/laptop (e.g., MacBook)?
>>
>> I am a heavy user who likes to run Fink stuff for X11, play hungry power 
>> games (e.g., MacMAME, Quake 3 Arena and its mods)
> 
> Since 10.5 isn't actually out yet, all you're going to get is 
> speculation. I can tell you, however, that in my experience, Mac OS X 
> has generally gotten *faster* rather than slower with each major release 
> - especially on older hardware. If that trend continues, I would expect 
> 10.5 to be faster and more efficient on your Powerbook.

Even with low memory like 512 MB of RAM?
-- 
"The ambitious one makes friends with the elephant, then tramples upon 
the ant." --Indian
    /\___/\
   / /\ /\ \      Phillip/Ant @ http://antfarm.ma.cx (Personal Web Site)
  | |o   o| |        Ant's Quality Foraged Links (AQFL): http://aqfl.net
     \ _ /       Remove ANT from e-mail address: philpi@earthlink.netANT
      ( )                                           or ANTant@zimage.com
Ant is currently not listening to any songs on his home computer.
0
Ant
10/22/2007 3:19:36 PM
In article <471cbf88$0$24349$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,
 Ant <ANTant@zimage.com> wrote:

> On 10/22/2007 7:34 AM PT, Jolly Roger typed:
> 
> >> I have an old PowerBook G4 (PPC) with 1 Ghz CPU speed, 512 MB of RAM, 
> >> and 60 GB of HDD. If I were to do a fresh clean install of Mac OS X 
> >> 10.5/Leopard on it (still have 10.2.8 on it and seems fine, just old), 
> >> then how will it perform? Will it be slower? Or should I just wait until 
> >> I get a new Apple notebook/laptop (e.g., MacBook)?
> >>
> >> I am a heavy user who likes to run Fink stuff for X11, play hungry power 
> >> games (e.g., MacMAME, Quake 3 Arena and its mods)
> > 
> > Since 10.5 isn't actually out yet, all you're going to get is 
> > speculation. I can tell you, however, that in my experience, Mac OS X 
> > has generally gotten *faster* rather than slower with each major release 
> > - especially on older hardware. If that trend continues, I would expect 
> > 10.5 to be faster and more efficient on your Powerbook.
> 
> Even with low memory like 512 MB of RAM?

You're really asking a question nobody can answer, since the exact 
memory footprint and requirements of 10.5 are unknown at this point. My 
best guess is performance will be the same or better, but it's just an 
educated guess.

-- 
Note: Please send all responses to the relevant news group. If you 
must contact me through e-mail, let me know when you send email to 
this address so that your email doesn't get eaten by my SPAM filter.

JR
0
Jolly
10/22/2007 3:51:27 PM
In article <471ca90a$0$26350$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,
 Ant <ANTant@zimage.com> wrote:

> On 10/22/2007 6:19 AM PT, David Empson typed:
> 
> >> I have an old PowerBook G4 (PPC) with 1 Ghz CPU speed, 512 MB of RAM,
> >> and 60 GB of HDD. If I were to do a fresh clean install of Mac OS X 
> >> 10.5/Leopard on it (still have 10.2.8 on it and seems fine, just old),
> >> then how will it perform? Will it be slower?
> > 
> > If you only install Leopard and don't do any hardware changes, it will
> > probably be slower, due to Leopard's increased memory requirements. If
> > you also install more RAM, it will be faster than 10.2.8.
> 
> Yes, no changes. Not even memory upgrade. I have to remove the old 512 
> MB and buy 1 GB or whatever.
> 
> 
> > A 1 GHz PowerBook G4 can be taken up to 1, 1.25 or 2 GB of RAM,
> > depending on which model you have. Even 1 GB will be a big improvement
> > over 512 MB.
> 
> I think mine can go only up to 1 GB maximum.

The oldest PowerBook with a 1GHz CPU was the last Titanium PB model. It 
can accept two 512MB so-dimms for a total of 1GB.

> RAM is expensive too and  probably hard to find these days!

Go check ramseeker.com.

You can get 512MB so-dimms for the TiBook from $58 to $126 each.
0
Steve
10/22/2007 6:54:43 PM
In article <471c9b7e$0$25631$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,
 Ant <ANTant@zimage.com> wrote:

> Hello,
> 
> I have an old PowerBook G4 (PPC) with 1 Ghz CPU speed, 512 MB of RAM, 
> and 60 GB of HDD. If I were to do a fresh clean install of Mac OS X 
> 10.5/Leopard on it (still have 10.2.8 on it and seems fine, just old), 
> then how will it perform? Will it be slower? Or should I just wait until 
> I get a new Apple notebook/laptop (e.g., MacBook)?
> 
> I am a heavy user who likes to run Fink stuff for X11, play hungry power 
> games (e.g., MacMAME, Quake 3 Arena and its mods)
> 
> Thank you in advance.

Should work ok, at least 10.4 ran well on such a machine, and generally 
newer systems ran rather faster than slower.
We'll know for sure on Friday :-)

Marc
0
Marc
10/22/2007 10:20:12 PM
On 10/22/2007 11:54 AM PT, Steve Hix typed:

> In article <471ca90a$0$26350$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,
>  Ant <ANTant@zimage.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 10/22/2007 6:19 AM PT, David Empson typed:
>>
>>>> I have an old PowerBook G4 (PPC) with 1 Ghz CPU speed, 512 MB of RAM,
>>>> and 60 GB of HDD. If I were to do a fresh clean install of Mac OS X 
>>>> 10.5/Leopard on it (still have 10.2.8 on it and seems fine, just old),
>>>> then how will it perform? Will it be slower?
>>> If you only install Leopard and don't do any hardware changes, it will
>>> probably be slower, due to Leopard's increased memory requirements. If
>>> you also install more RAM, it will be faster than 10.2.8.
>> Yes, no changes. Not even memory upgrade. I have to remove the old 512 
>> MB and buy 1 GB or whatever.
>>
>>
>>> A 1 GHz PowerBook G4 can be taken up to 1, 1.25 or 2 GB of RAM,
>>> depending on which model you have. Even 1 GB will be a big improvement
>>> over 512 MB.
>> I think mine can go only up to 1 GB maximum.
> 
> The oldest PowerBook with a 1GHz CPU was the last Titanium PB model. It 
> can accept two 512MB so-dimms for a total of 1GB.

Ah yes. Unfortunately, I will have to dump my old two 256 MBs to add two 
512 MBs. Sheesh.


>> RAM is expensive too and  probably hard to find these days!
> 
> Go check ramseeker.com.
> 
> You can get 512MB so-dimms for the TiBook from $58 to $126 each.

New too? Interesting.
-- 
"News Headline: Ants Take A Long Time To Cook In Microwave" --unknown
    /\___/\
   / /\ /\ \      Phillip/Ant @ http://antfarm.ma.cx (Personal Web Site)
  | |o   o| |        Ant's Quality Foraged Links (AQFL): http://aqfl.net
     \ _ /       Remove ANT from e-mail address: philpi@earthlink.netANT
      ( )                                           or ANTant@zimage.com
Ant is currently not listening to any songs on his home computer.
0
Ant
10/23/2007 1:21:28 PM
In article <471df558$0$20569$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,
 Ant <ANTant@zimage.com> wrote:

> > Go check ramseeker.com.
> > 
> > You can get 512MB so-dimms for the TiBook from $58 to $126 each.
> 
> New too? Interesting.

But be careful about buying the absolute cheapest memory you can get. 
More than a few people have gotten burned by vendors shipping stuff that 
isn't really compliant.

Go to Crucial or OtherWorld. They _probably_ won't give you the lowest 
price but they don't gouge either, and you'll get the right parts and 
good service along the way.
0
Gregory
10/23/2007 5:21:05 PM
On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 06:43:37 -0700, Ant wrote:
>  I think mine can go only up to 1 GB maximum. RAM is expensive too and 
>  probably hard to find these days!

I thought it was never that cheap. There was a peak one year ago, but
prices are half by now.

I wonder whether my iBook G4 (800 MHz) would like an upgrade - prices in
Europe are below EUR 50 / GB.

>  Not that soon. Maybe in a year or more.

> >> I am a heavy user who likes to run Fink stuff for X11, play hungry power
> >> games (e.g., MacMAME, Quake 3 Arena and its mods), Neo/OpenOffice, etc.
> > 
> > You might not be able to use a MacBook for some of those. A MacBook Pro
> > is likely to be a better choice if you are doing anything involving
> > heavy duty graphics.
> 
>  Thanks for the insights. I think I will just wait since MacBooks will 
>  come with Leopard preinstalled.

You need a Laptop? Otherwise a Mac mini might be a nice add-on.

- Martin
0
Martin
10/23/2007 6:04:39 PM
On 10/23/2007 11:04 AM PT, Martin Trautmann typed:

> On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 06:43:37 -0700, Ant wrote:
>>  I think mine can go only up to 1 GB maximum. RAM is expensive too and 
>>  probably hard to find these days!
> 
> I thought it was never that cheap. There was a peak one year ago, but
> prices are half by now.
> 
> I wonder whether my iBook G4 (800 MHz) would like an upgrade - prices in
> Europe are below EUR 50 / GB.
> 
>>  Not that soon. Maybe in a year or more.
> 
>>>> I am a heavy user who likes to run Fink stuff for X11, play hungry power
>>>> games (e.g., MacMAME, Quake 3 Arena and its mods), Neo/OpenOffice, etc.
>>> You might not be able to use a MacBook for some of those. A MacBook Pro
>>> is likely to be a better choice if you are doing anything involving
>>> heavy duty graphics.
>>  Thanks for the insights. I think I will just wait since MacBooks will 
>>  come with Leopard preinstalled.
> 
> You need a Laptop? Otherwise a Mac mini might be a nice add-on.

Nope, not now. Later on, probably. I will stick with my old PowerBook G4. :)
-- 
"For an ant to have wings would be his (her) undoing." --Iranian
    /\___/\
   / /\ /\ \      Phillip/Ant @ http://antfarm.ma.cx (Personal Web Site)
  | |o   o| |        Ant's Quality Foraged Links (AQFL): http://aqfl.net
     \ _ /       Remove ANT from e-mail address: philpi@earthlink.netANT
      ( )                                           or ANTant@zimage.com
Ant is currently not listening to any songs on his home computer.
0
Ant
10/23/2007 7:55:02 PM
In article <uce-7D51E7.13210523102007@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
 Gregory Weston <uce@splook.com> wrote:

> In article <471df558$0$20569$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,
>  Ant <ANTant@zimage.com> wrote:
> 
> > > Go check ramseeker.com.
> > > 
> > > You can get 512MB so-dimms for the TiBook from $58 to $126 each.
> > 
> > New too? Interesting.
> 
> But be careful about buying the absolute cheapest memory you can get. 
> More than a few people have gotten burned by vendors shipping stuff that 
> isn't really compliant.
> 
> Go to Crucial or OtherWorld. They _probably_ won't give you the lowest 
> price but they don't gouge either, and you'll get the right parts and 
> good service along the way.

Seconded.
0
Steve
10/24/2007 1:42:19 AM
In article <471c9b7e$0$25631$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,
 Ant <ANTant@zimage.com> wrote:

> Hello,
> 
> I have an old PowerBook G4 (PPC) with 1 Ghz CPU speed, 512 MB of RAM, 
> and 60 GB of HDD. If I were to do a fresh clean install of Mac OS X 
> 10.5/Leopard on it (still have 10.2.8 on it and seems fine, just old), 
> then how will it perform? Will it be slower? Or should I just wait until 
> I get a new Apple notebook/laptop (e.g., MacBook)?
> 
> I am a heavy user who likes to run Fink stuff for X11, play hungry power 
> games (e.g., MacMAME, Quake 3 Arena and its mods)

Since you are coming from 10.2.8, it *might* be faster.   10.3 was 
faster than 10.2, and 10.4 was faster than 10.3.   But 10.5 is *not* 
faster than 10.4, at least not for me.

However, if you were coming from 10.4, I'd say it's going to be slower.   
10.5 is noticeably slower than 10.4 on my MDD dual 1.25 Ghz G4 - even 
with 1.5 GB RAM.   Boots slower, minimizing apps to the Dock is not as 
fluid,  

The days of new versions being faster than old versions are gone - at 
least for PPC machines.   There is a reason why Apple said 867 Mhz is 
the minimum CPU speed.  Yours is barely above that, and you definitely 
need more RAM.

I would put 10.4 on that machine if I were you, along with another 512 
megs RAM.

Bob Campbell
0
Bob
10/29/2007 11:34:49 PM
Bob Campbell wrote:

> The days of new versions being faster than old versions are gone - at
> least for PPC machines.

This was in itself quite remarkable!
0
10/30/2007 8:34:14 AM
Bob Campbell wrote:
> Ant <ANTant@zimage.com> wrote:
>> I have an old PowerBook G4 (PPC) with 1 Ghz CPU speed, 512 MB of RAM, =

>> and 60 GB of HDD. If I were to do a fresh clean install of Mac OS X=20
>> 10.5/Leopard on it (still have 10.2.8 on it and seems fine, just old),=
=20
>> then how will it perform? Will it be slower? Or should I just wait unt=
il=20
>> I get a new Apple notebook/laptop (e.g., MacBook)?
>>
>> I am a heavy user who likes to run Fink stuff for X11, play hungry pow=
er=20
>> games (e.g., MacMAME, Quake 3 Arena and its mods)
>=20
> Since you are coming from 10.2.8, it *might* be faster.   10.3 was=20
> faster than 10.2, and 10.4 was faster than 10.3.   But 10.5 is *not*=20
> faster than 10.4, at least not for me.
>=20
> However, if you were coming from 10.4, I'd say it's going to be slower.=
  =20
> 10.5 is noticeably slower than 10.4 on my MDD dual 1.25 Ghz G4 - even=20
> with 1.5 GB RAM.   Boots slower, minimizing apps to the Dock is not as =

> fluid, =20

Well, - that's not my experiences. I have a QuickSilver dual 1ghz with=20
max. 1,5gb RAM. I upgraded directly onto my existing tiger 10.4.10.=20
Restarted and noticed a definite increase in startup time. - 10.4.10=20
took apprx. 11 secs. to boot to usable mode, and now with 10.5 it took=20
only 7 wecs. to usable mode.

Yesterday I then decided to make a totally clean install from scratch.=20
OK, the installation time was quite long, but after installation and a=20
restart, the boot time now is apprx. 4 secs. to usable mode.

All processes are indeed faster in Leopard towards Tiger. - My guess is=20
quite near to an increase with 40-45%. where the upgraded from Tiger to=20
Leopard version only increased with apprx. 20-25%.

> The days of new versions being faster than old versions are gone - at=20
> least for PPC machines. There is a reason why Apple said 867 Mhz is=20
> the minimum CPU speed. Yours is barely above that, and you definitely=20
> need more RAM.
>=20
> I would put 10.4 on that machine if I were you, along with another 512 =

> megs RAM.

Well... More RAM will even increase both speed and performance in=20
10.2.x, and surely with both Tiger and Leopard a total of 1 gig will be=20
the best.

Cheers, Erik Richard

--=20
  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
  Rgds. Gr=FC=DFe, Mvh. Erik Richard S=F8rensen, Member of ADC
  <mac-man_NOSP@M_stofanet.dk>  <http://www.nisus.com>
  NisusWriter - The Future In Multilingual Textprocessing
  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
0
ISO
10/30/2007 3:39:47 PM
In article <bob-6C247D.19344929102007@news.supernews.com>,
 Bob Campbell <bob@bob.bob> wrote:

> Since you are coming from 10.2.8, it *might* be faster.   10.3 was 
> faster than 10.2, and 10.4 was faster than 10.3.   But 10.5 is *not* 
> faster than 10.4, at least not for me.

It is definitely faster for me for most things on a 12" 1 GHz PowerBook 
G4 with 768MB of RAM, at least once the re-index and backup was done. 
(Some things, like System Preferences, were even faster while that was 
still going on.) However, I have noticed a few odd slowdowns, such as 
posting in MT Newswatcher causing a spinning beachball.
0
Steven
10/30/2007 5:58:00 PM
In article <47275043$0$1954$ba624c82@nntp02.dk.telia.net>,
 Erik Richard S�rensen <NOSPAM@NOSPAM.dk> wrote:

> Bob Campbell wrote:
> > Ant <ANTant@zimage.com> wrote:
> >> I have an old PowerBook G4 (PPC) with 1 Ghz CPU speed, 512 MB of RAM, 
> >> and 60 GB of HDD. If I were to do a fresh clean install of Mac OS X 
> >> 10.5/Leopard on it (still have 10.2.8 on it and seems fine, just old), 
> >> then how will it perform? Will it be slower? Or should I just wait until 
> >> I get a new Apple notebook/laptop (e.g., MacBook)?
> >>
> >> I am a heavy user who likes to run Fink stuff for X11, play hungry power 
> >> games (e.g., MacMAME, Quake 3 Arena and its mods)
> > 
> > Since you are coming from 10.2.8, it *might* be faster.   10.3 was 
> > faster than 10.2, and 10.4 was faster than 10.3.   But 10.5 is *not* 
> > faster than 10.4, at least not for me.
> > 
> > However, if you were coming from 10.4, I'd say it's going to be slower.   
> > 10.5 is noticeably slower than 10.4 on my MDD dual 1.25 Ghz G4 - even 
> > with 1.5 GB RAM.   Boots slower, minimizing apps to the Dock is not as 
> > fluid,  
> 
> Well, - that's not my experiences. I have a QuickSilver dual 1ghz with 
> max. 1,5gb RAM. I upgraded directly onto my existing tiger 10.4.10. 
> Restarted and noticed a definite increase in startup time. - 10.4.10 
> took apprx. 11 secs. to boot to usable mode, and now with 10.5 it took 
> only 7 wecs. to usable mode.

Wow, that's the exact opposite of what I'm seeing.   4.10 boots in about 
6 revolutions of the gear at the bottom of the screen.   5.0 takes about 
12.   Same drive, just partitioned.

Bob Campbell
0
Bob
10/30/2007 9:49:09 PM
In article <bob-6C247D.19344929102007@news.supernews.com>,
 Bob Campbell <bob@bob.bob> wrote:

> In article <471c9b7e$0$25631$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,
>  Ant <ANTant@zimage.com> wrote:
> 
> > Hello,
> > 
> > I have an old PowerBook G4 (PPC) with 1 Ghz CPU speed, 512 MB of RAM, 
> > and 60 GB of HDD. If I were to do a fresh clean install of Mac OS X 
> > 10.5/Leopard on it (still have 10.2.8 on it and seems fine, just old), 
> > then how will it perform? Will it be slower? Or should I just wait until 
> > I get a new Apple notebook/laptop (e.g., MacBook)?
> > 
> > I am a heavy user who likes to run Fink stuff for X11, play hungry power 
> > games (e.g., MacMAME, Quake 3 Arena and its mods)
> 
> Since you are coming from 10.2.8, it *might* be faster.   10.3 was 
> faster than 10.2, and 10.4 was faster than 10.3.   But 10.5 is *not* 
> faster than 10.4, at least not for me.
> 
> However, if you were coming from 10.4, I'd say it's going to be slower.   
> 10.5 is noticeably slower than 10.4 on my MDD dual 1.25 Ghz G4 - even 
> with 1.5 GB RAM.   Boots slower, minimizing apps to the Dock is not as 
> fluid,  
> 
> The days of new versions being faster than old versions are gone - at 
> least for PPC machines.   There is a reason why Apple said 867 Mhz is 
> the minimum CPU speed.  Yours is barely above that, and you definitely 
> need more RAM.
> 
> I would put 10.4 on that machine if I were you, along with another 512 
> megs RAM.
> 
> Bob Campbell

Saw 10.5.1 loaded on a G3 Pismo (500 Mhz?) with 1 GB of RAM and it ran 
fine.

-- 


0
PumpkinEscobar
11/21/2007 9:55:35 PM
I don't know what you mean by "ran fine".

I have 10.5.1 on an aluminum 12" 867 MHz G4 with 1G of RAM and a 120G 
hard drive and it is anything but fine.

It should not have been released.

The OS does not bomb but plenty of the apps do. eg Safari (latest 
version); Newswatcher(latest version) and MIE to mention three.
Also, It is slower than 10.4.9.

RR
> 
> Saw 10.5.1 loaded on a G3 Pismo (500 Mhz?) with 1 GB of RAM and it ran 
> fine.
0
Rikoski
11/21/2007 10:06:45 PM
I don't know what you mean by "ran fine".

I have 10.5.1 on an aluminum 12" 867 MHz G4 with 1G of RAM and a 120G 
hard drive and it is anything but fine.

It should not have been released.

The OS does not bomb but plenty of the apps do. eg Safari (latest 
version); Newswatcher(latest version) and MIE to mention three.
Also, It is slower than 10.4.9.

RR
> 
> Saw 10.5.1 loaded on a G3 Pismo (500 Mhz?) with 1 GB of RAM and it ran 
> fine.
0
Rikoski
11/21/2007 10:08:40 PM
PumpkinEscobar <pescobar@nospam.net> wrote:

> Saw 10.5.1 loaded on a G3 Pismo (500 Mhz?) with 1 GB of RAM and it ran
> fine.

If so, that would the fist report I've seen of Leopard running on any G3
processor.

I tried getting it going on a 400 MHz iMac G3 via a back-door method
(booting off an external hard drive) and it never got past the Apple
logo and spinning pinwheel. There might have been an issue with total
installed RAM so this wasn't conclusive.

Has anyone else tried running Leopard on a G3 (which was supported by
Tiger), and got anywhere?

I also haven't seen any report of it running on a "Yikes" PowerMac G4
(first model, 350 or 400 MHz G4 with PCI Graphics rather than AGP), with
or without an upgraded processor.

-- 
David Empson
dempson@actrix.gen.nz
0
dempson
11/22/2007 9:58:15 AM
Rikoski wrote:
> I don't know what you mean by "ran fine".
> 
> I have 10.5.1 on an aluminum 12" 867 MHz G4 with 1G of RAM and a 120G 
> hard drive and it is anything but fine.
> 
> It should not have been released.
> 
> The OS does not bomb but plenty of the apps do. eg Safari (latest 
> version); Newswatcher(latest version) and MIE to mention three.
> Also, It is slower than 10.4.9.


Runs fine here, seems a bit unfair to be blaming the OS and making 
ridiculous statements like 'It should not have been released'.  Tried 
re-installing?

Andy.

(Running 10.5.1 on a G4.)
0
Andy
11/22/2007 11:23:09 AM
PumpkinEscobar wrote:
> Bob Campbell <bob@bob.bob> wrote:
>> Ant <ANTant@zimage.com> wrote:
>>> I have an old PowerBook G4 (PPC) with 1 Ghz CPU speed, 512 MB of RAM,=
=20
>>> and 60 GB of HDD. If I were to do a fresh clean install of Mac OS X=20
>>> 10.5/Leopard on it (still have 10.2.8 on it and seems fine, just old)=
,=20
>>> then how will it perform? Will it be slower? Or should I just wait un=
til=20
>>> I get a new Apple notebook/laptop (e.g., MacBook)?
>>>
>>> I am a heavy user who likes to run Fink stuff for X11, play hungry po=
wer=20
>>> games (e.g., MacMAME, Quake 3 Arena and its mods)
>> Since you are coming from 10.2.8, it *might* be faster.   10.3 was=20
>> faster than 10.2, and 10.4 was faster than 10.3.   But 10.5 is *not*=20
>> faster than 10.4, at least not for me.
>>
>> However, if you were coming from 10.4, I'd say it's going to be slower=
=2E  =20
>> 10.5 is noticeably slower than 10.4 on my MDD dual 1.25 Ghz G4 - even =

>> with 1.5 GB RAM.   Boots slower, minimizing apps to the Dock is not as=
=20
>> fluid, =20
>>
>> The days of new versions being faster than old versions are gone - at =

>> least for PPC machines.   There is a reason why Apple said 867 Mhz is =

>> the minimum CPU speed.  Yours is barely above that, and you definitely=
=20
>> need more RAM.
>>
>> I would put 10.4 on that machine if I were you, along with another 512=
=20
>> megs RAM.
>=20
> Saw 10.5.1 loaded on a G3 Pismo (500 Mhz?) with 1 GB of RAM and it ran =

> fine.

That's very possible, if you install it from an external HD, where=20
Leopard has been installed in a machine that supports the Leopard install=
er.

I've done the same on a QuickSilver that wouldn't let me install 'Leo'=20
directly....

Cheers, Erik Richard

--=20
  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
  Rgds. Gr=FC=DFe, Mvh. Erik Richard S=F8rensen, Member of ADC
  <mac-man_NOSP@M_stofanet.dk>  <http://www.nisus.com>
  NisusWriter - The Future In Multilingual Textprocessing
  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
0
ISO
11/22/2007 2:49:10 PM
Rikoski wrote:
> I don't know what you mean by "ran fine".
>=20
> I have 10.5.1 on an aluminum 12" 867 MHz G4 with 1G of RAM and a 120G=20
> hard drive and it is anything but fine.

'Fine' is 'fine'... I've installed it on a Dual G4/466mhz by cloning the =

10.5.0 from another supported computer, and then updated to 10.5.1. It=20
IS running both fine and fast - even faster than 10.4.11!

And so far I've had no problems with it.

> It should not have been released.

Argh kwatch! - why not install the Leopard just following the standard=20
install. I've also seen Leopard on a single G4 800mhz and indeed it is=20
both faster and more stable than 10.4.x.

> The OS does not bomb but plenty of the apps do. eg Safari (latest=20
> version); Newswatcher(latest version) and MIE to mention three.
> Also, It is slower than 10.4.9.

Of course there are apps that aren't supported by Leopard, but updates=20
are already coming up.

'MIE'? do you mean 'Internet Explorer'? - If so, it has never even run=20
well on any OS X! - The only reliable MSIE version was the old ver. 4.x=20
for Os 8.x and 9.x.

cheers, Erik Richard

--=20
  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
  Rgds. Gr=FC=DFe, Mvh. Erik Richard S=F8rensen, Member of ADC
  <mac-man_NOSP@M_stofanet.dk>  <http://www.nisus.com>
  NisusWriter - The Future In Multilingual Textprocessing
  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
0
ISO
11/22/2007 3:01:10 PM
David Empson wrote:
> PumpkinEscobar <pescobar@nospam.net> wrote:
>> Saw 10.5.1 loaded on a G3 Pismo (500 Mhz?) with 1 GB of RAM and it ran=

>> fine.
>=20
> If so, that would the fist report I've seen of Leopard running on any G=
3
> processor.
>=20
> I tried getting it going on a 400 MHz iMac G3 via a back-door method
> (booting off an external hard drive) and it never got past the Apple
> logo and spinning pinwheel. There might have been an issue with total
> installed RAM so this wasn't conclusive.
>=20
> Has anyone else tried running Leopard on a G3 (which was supported by
> Tiger), and got anywhere?

I've heard of it, but not seen it myself...

> I also haven't seen any report of it running on a "Yikes" PowerMac G4
> (first model, 350 or 400 MHz G4 with PCI Graphics rather than AGP), wit=
h
> or without an upgraded processor.

To make Leopard run on any Mac lower than 800mhz, ou must install the=20
Leopard to another disk.

There are three main methods to do it the best way...
1, Hook up the recipient machine as a 'target disk' to another computer=20
with a similar type of processor - i.e. don't use a dual machine if the=20
recipient machine is single CPU.
2, Install Leopard on the recipient machine's HD by taking out the HD=20
and mount it in the machine, where ou already run Leopard and boot from=20
the Leopard DVD and install to the new disk. - After installation, put=20
back the HD into the recipient machine and boot it. It might be showing=20
the grey Apple logo for very long time - up to half an hour.
3, Install Leopard on an external Firewire HD and use a sufficient clone =

app like Intech QuickBack. QB will copy _any_ file from the external HD.

This method requires that the recipient machine can boot from another=20
system that is able to run fx. QuickBack - fx. a Tiger partition.

After cloning the leopard onto the wanted partition/disk, select the=20
Leopard volume in 'startup Disk' and reboot. - again it might show the=20
grey Apple for a very long time before booting.

I haven't seen Leopard on a Yikes either, but I have used method 3 to=20
get Leopard onto a QuickSilver (orig. 867mhz) that has been very much=20
changed in the firmware, - so much that the Leopard installer recognizes =

the machine as just a Dual 466mhz - though it's a Dual 1,8ghz. The=20
changes in firmware was needed to keep the OS 9.2 bootability with the=20
GigaDesigns 7447A Dual 1,8ghz processor. After the cloning onto one of=20
the 4 HDs, the QS started up and the grey Apple was on the screen for=20
about 15 mins. before it loaded. But then it also booted in a second or=20
so, - so fast that the startup dialog only gave a glimps on the screen,=20
before it was ready to use. Nex reboot started the machine in 5 secs.=20
ready to use!

  systemprofiler told me that it was now a Dual 466mhz, so I installed=20
the GigeMeter controller software, rebooted - and indeed the machine now =

is a Dual 1,8ghz and it is running so fast that I've renamed it to=20
'SpeedyGonzales'.:-)

- Of course it isn't as fast as my MacPro Quad 2,66ghz, but it is quite=20
a lot faster than with 10.4.11. Both the 10.4.11 and the 10.5.1 are=20
'clean installs'. On this Dual 1,8ghz I also have a Tiger 10.4.11 disk=20
with all the Apple developer tools. - some of these tools do indeed slow =

down the system, but still quite fast.

Sure i hope that ryan at OWC soon will have a new version of XPostFacto=20
out with leopard support. this will then give possibilities for direct=20
installing of leopard on normally non-supported CPUs like the Sawtooths, =

GigabitEthernet, DigitalAudio and Quicksilvers with CPU speed lower than =

800mhz.

Cheers, Erik Richard

--=20
  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
  Rgds. Gr=FC=DFe, Mvh. Erik Richard S=F8rensen, Member of ADC
  <mac-man_NOSP@M_stofanet.dk>  <http://www.nisus.com>
  NisusWriter - The Future In Multilingual Textprocessing
  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
0
ISO
11/22/2007 4:01:08 PM
In article 
<4745669d$0$28689$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>,
 Andy <nospam@no.no> wrote:

> Runs fine here, seems a bit unfair to be blaming the OS and making 
> ridiculous statements like 'It should not have been released'.  Tried 
> re-installing?

OS X 10.5.1 seems to be running fine on my 1.25 GHz 15 inch Powerbook 
G4. I upgraded my memory from 512 MB to 1.25 GB prior to installing, as 
reports said that seemed a critical resource in Leopard.  I just did a 
regular install over the top of my existing Tiger (which was installed 
over the top of Panther). No benchmarks. I won't declare it faster, but 
it certainly doesn't seem any slower.

I did have connection problems from safari and other internet 
applications via WiFi from my iMac G5 about a week after installing 
Leopard. The G4 also had connection problems. The WiFi failure also 
poisoned Ethernet connection via cable, which came back up instantly 
when WiFi was turned off. Put considerable time into searching for 
causes (there are several forum threads on the Apple Discussions). I put 
the IP address of my ISP's DNS into my ADSL Router, and haven't had any 
WiFi connection problems since.

-- 
http://www.ericlindsay.com
0
Eric
11/23/2007 12:14:21 AM
Erik Richard S�rensen <NOSPAM@NOSPAM.dk> wrote:

> David Empson wrote:
> > PumpkinEscobar <pescobar@nospam.net> wrote:
> >> Saw 10.5.1 loaded on a G3 Pismo (500 Mhz?) with 1 GB of RAM and it ran
> >> fine.
> > 
> > If so, that would the fist report I've seen of Leopard running on any G3
> > processor.
> > 
> > I tried getting it going on a 400 MHz iMac G3 via a back-door method
> > (booting off an external hard drive) and it never got past the Apple
> > logo and spinning pinwheel. There might have been an issue with total
> > installed RAM so this wasn't conclusive.
> > 
> > Has anyone else tried running Leopard on a G3 (which was supported by
> > Tiger), and got anywhere?
> 
> I've heard of it, but not seen it myself...
> 
> > I also haven't seen any report of it running on a "Yikes" PowerMac G4
> > (first model, 350 or 400 MHz G4 with PCI Graphics rather than AGP), with
> > or without an upgraded processor.
> 
> To make Leopard run on any Mac lower than 800mhz, ou must install the
> Leopard to another disk.

Yes, I am aware of that and have done it myself.

The only successful reports I've seen have been on "Sawtooth" (AGP
Graphics) and later models, not "Yikes" (PCI Graphics).

There is an item in the latest Other World Computing newsletter saying
that Leopard does NOT work on the Yikes model, even if you install a
third party G4 processor upgrade which gets it over the 867 MHz barrier.
The same applies to the Yosemite (Blue & White G3).

This suggests that (as I suspected), Leopard no longer includes drivers
for the logic board chipset on those two models, or it has some
requirement such as AGP, or Firewire built into the main chipset rather
than being a separate component, or a new enough firmware revision which
includes features such as Firewire target mode (which is not supported
on those two models).

If so, this means that the "Pismo" PowerBook G3, slot-loading iMac G3
and all iBook G3 models may theoretically able to run Leopard, since
they have a Sawtooth-like logic board design with AGP, but the G3
processor and video hardware might be a stumbling block. I'll need to do
some more research.

-- 
David Empson
dempson@actrix.gen.nz
0
dempson
11/23/2007 12:43:38 AM
Reply: