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
