On Oct 30, 2008, at 9:50 AM, Dan wrote:
> What about Spotlight - did you have its indexing disabled on all
> volumes?
No. Spotlight wasn't disabled, but it was also not indexing.
I should have also commented that the CPU overhead of Leopard was
about 2% higher than Tiger. Tiger was about 5%
At 9:46 PM -0700 10/29/2008, Paul wrote:
>
>How does the X86 code in OS 10 get run on a PPC?
It doesn't, period.
"optimization" is done automagically in the compiler, on a per
cpu-architecture basis. Mullin's comments about optimization being
the cause of the speed difference is PURE speculat
At 9:27 PM -0500 10/29/2008, Kris Tilford wrote:
>ran benchmarks. Sure enough, it appears Leopard 10.5.5 was about 20%
>slower than Tiger 10.4.11. Benchmarks were run on a clean system
>with nothing else running.
What about Spotlight - did you have its indexing disabled on all volumes?
- Dan.
That makes it very likely for Tiger to run faster on G5's, too.
How does the X86 code in OS 10 get run on a PPC? My knowledge of this
stuff is pretty sketchy. The only bit of information I've gathered is
that there's something called Rosetta to run PPC software on Intel
Macs.
--~--~-~--~-
> Leopard isn't Vista, but it's the first OS X edition to go slower on
> PPC Macs than it's predecessor. On Intel Macs Leopard actually runs
> faster than Tiger, so go figure?
I found that the Leopard is optimized for X86 Macs, using mostly X86
coding
whereas the 10.4.11 Tiger is optimized
I just finished downgrading a 1.67 GHz PowerBook G4 with 2 GB RAM and
an 80 GB 5,400 RPM Apple OEM HD. It was being downgraded because the
owner said Leopard seemed too sluggish, especially in photo editing
software. I ran benchmarks. Sure enough, it appears Leopard 10.5.5 was
about 20% sl
