Re: Leopard or Tiger?

[John Carmonne]

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  wrote:
> 
> From: Richard Gerome 
> 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?

[Roger Kulp]

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  wrote:

From: Richard Gerome 
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?

[Stewie de Young]

"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  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

Re: Leopard or Tiger?

[Robert MacLeay]

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  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  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 
> > >Sent: Dec 7, 2009 8:41 AM
> > >To: G-Group 
> > >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?

[Dan]

On Dec 7, 3:49 pm, Kris Tilford  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:
>  

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?

[Dan]

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?

[Liam Proven]

On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 8:49 PM, Kris Tilford  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?

[Kris Tilford]

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

RE: Leopard or Tiger?

[Stewie de Young]

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?

[Richard Gerome]

   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 
>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?

[Kris Tilford]

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:


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?

[Stewie de Young]

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  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 
> > >Sent: Dec 7, 2009 8:41 AM
> > >To: G-Group 
> > >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?

[Baha Ata]

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 

> 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  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 
> > >Sent: Dec 7, 2009 8:41 AM
> > >To: G-Group 
> > >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?

[mythmaker18]

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  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 
> >Sent: Dec 7, 2009 8:41 AM
> >To: G-Group 
> >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?

[Charles Lenington]

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?

[Richard Gerome]

   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 
>Sent: Dec 7, 2009 8:41 AM
>To: G-Group 
>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?

[Baha Ata]

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 

> 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?

[Ted Treen]

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  wrote:

From: mythmaker18 
Subject: Leopard or Tiger?
To: "G-Group" 
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

Leopard or Tiger?

[mythmaker18]

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: Performance of Leopard or Tiger Server on a PowerMac G4

[Jonas Ulrich]

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 wrote:

>
> 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
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

Performance of Leopard or Tiger Server on a PowerMac G4

[Jagger De Leo]

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
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---