Amiga.org
The "Not Quite Amiga but still computer related category" => Alternative Operating Systems => Topic started by: Tenacious on April 15, 2009, 02:35:57 AM
-
I just picked up a 1.8GHz single core G5 with 2.5 Gigs of ram. I am most tempted to run OS 10.4 because I already have it, and I like the flexibilty of running the Classic environment. I normally prefer stability and responsiveness to gimmicky bloat.
EDIT: I intend to use this machine to suppliment my Amiga. Things like making Mp3s, UTube, printing PDFs, general compatibilty with the outside world. I'm not a game player.
Having said that, is there anything I would miss in a later version of the OS?
-
What would you miss? The main thing I can think of is Time Machine which I think first came with 10.5. It's already saved me when my hard drive crashed. I'm backing up automatically to a second drive in my G5 Tower. Restoring was as simple as a reboot with the system CD and a quick restore to a new drive.
I'd go with 10.5 if you can afford it, plus you get to use all the newer versions of the Mac iSoftware...
Bob
-
I'm gathering that Time Machine is a slick recovery program for a dying HD?
So far, the iSoftware has been lost on me.
-
As spoken about in another thread recently, I was disappointed going from 10.4 to 10.5. I have a 2.1ghz G5 and noticed slowdown in everyday usage in 10.5's performance. There are a few major annoyances, such as how the Finder takes "forever" to load and it seems that the the OS loads and hogs more resources for stuff you normally wouldn't use anyway. I've also noticed delays in typing in Safari as well. 10.5 just seems sluggish compared to the 10.4.
Never used TimeMachine either, and that may be a good program and all, but there are other backup schemes out there. HD failures are not common on a Mac like they are on a PeeCee of course too, so not sure if a backup program that's built into the OS would be a "must have" for me. In fact, I have never had a HD crash on a Mac system... knock on plastic and aluminum! lol
I currently run 10.5, but would like to go back to 10.4 someday. Oh - and that huge month tag that distracts from viewing iPhoto's thumbnails is annoying. I wish you could turn that off. There was also a few features taken away for unknown reasons from the latest iMovie/iDVD too that was mentioned and sorely missed by the editors at MacWorld that I cannot remember. Don't use them too much. All I know is that the iLife suite took a hit too performance wise, but of course - there may be positive tradeoffs... just can't think of any right now. All aspects of the computer seem slower with 10.5 on my system and I did a clean install too!
Oh and ditching classic support was really idiotic. I really like the flexibility of running OS9 type stuff and had a few programs which still used it. My favourite version of Photoshop for instance. I've since replaced it with CS4, but what the heck - it's only money, right? :lol:
IMO - If you normally prefer stability and responsiveness to gimmicky bloat, you will be sorely disappointed in 10.5.
BTW: Anyone have any use for a boxed copy of 10.2?
-
Time Machine is a HD backup utility as easy as pie to use and setup is all. Your HD has got to be in good shape for it to work. It doesn't perform any other miracle other than restoring your software to a known 100% functional HD.
Tenacious wrote:
I'm gathering that Time Machine is a slick recovery program for a dying HD?
So far, the iSoftware has been lost on me.
-
Yes, I read what you wrote in the other thread and was hoping you would respond here with more info. Thank You!
My G5 is slower than yours. I was fairly set before I started this thread.
I will probably run two identical HDs and back one to the other. There must be something useful on Pure-Mac.
-
I run 10.5 on my Intel iMac and MacBook Pro, but my wife has 10.4 on her 12" PowerBook. I tried installing 10.5 on it, but it felt slower. Whether 10.5 actually was slower, I don't know. I'd say 10.4 is about as high as you'd really want to go on a G4/G5. There's no really compelling reason to upgrade. What you get with Time Machine can be handled with SuperDuper or Carbon Copy Cloner.
Save2600-- have you tried SheepShaver (http://gwenole.beauchesne.info//en/projects/sheepshaver) for classic emulation?
-
@lofstudio:
No, I've never even heard of that. Thanks, I'll check into it tomorrow. I gave it a quick look and under the requirements, it said you needed a PPC ROM image or something like that. Where to get one of those? I'm not really aware of a Mac underground scene at all.
-
Tenacious wrote:
I like the flexibilty of running the Classic environment. I normally prefer stability and responsiveness to gimmicky bloat.
Dude, the Classic environment is anything but stable. It has no intraprocess memory protection, just like AmigaOS.
It's somewhat responsive because it's so damn simple and outdated. Again just like... well you get the point.
It also runs much like a VM, so you won't ever have it running on the bare metal.
Having said that, OS X is neither gimmicky, nor bloated. It will take a book to explain why, but reading about the matter will help explain. Briefly: first and foremost Mac OS X derives its lineage from NeXTSTEP which was about 20 years ahead of its time when it was out in the late 80s and early 90s. A lot more has gone into Mac OS X, and I'm not talking about the "Unix core", but more about the very powerful programming interfaces/libraries/frameworks/APIs which sit on top. I'm talking about Cocoa, Objective-C 2.0, CoreAnimation, CoreImage, CoreAudio, OpenGL, OpenCL, etc.
There's nothing gimmicky in the OS. What is claimed that it does or how it works, is actually how it is under the hood. Lack of knowledge or the ability to diagnose and find for oneself doesn't make such claims a gimmick or marketing. There are some very powerful technologies under the hood,
and those of us who know about them (not by any God induced miracle, but by simply *reading*), have become fans, fanatics and fanboys because we've seen the virtues and benefits of such technologies and we recognize them as NON-marketing mumbo-jumbo, but very real and empowering technologies.
And to briefly see them in action, just watch this, oh about 20 year old video on how easy it is for even an unskilled person to create a powerful database driven application in less than 10 minutes. After the video, stop and ponder: if NeXTSTEP/OSX could do that back in 1993, what can one do with it in 2009?
Start at minute 23 if you don't want to see the whole thing (or go to 31:20-31:34 for a joke you'll likely appreciate), although you will only learn things if you see the whole:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j02b8Fuz73A
(follow the related videos on this one because it's split over a few parts)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1wYy5qvA24
These are EARLY 90s videos!!! Jezus Kriste!
Also this following guy, who works at Google currently, has one of the best, actually THE best, in-depth books on Mac OS X and the various advanced technologies within. Luckily his intro pages are free:
Start with Chapter 1.
http://osxbook.com/book/bonus/
Tenacious wrote:
Having said that, is there anything I would miss in a later version of the OS?
Yes, about 20 years worth of advanced technology.
As per the original question, I run Mac OS X 10.6 ;-) and recommend Leopard/10.5 as the minimum, unless you have a way old Mac which then should have 10.3.9 as the absolute minimum.
-
Tenacious wrote:
I'm gathering that Time Machine is a slick recovery program for a dying HD?
No. Time Machine is just a simple and intuitive backup software.
It will not attempt HDD recovery or anything such. That's best left for experts or other tools (For Mac OS X I recommend Data Rescue II).
Tenacious wrote:
So far, the iSoftware has been lost on me.
Have you actually, like, launched the applications and spent 10 minutes with them? If not, you'll never "get" them.
If you still don't, just launch iDVD or iPhoto and go to the Help menu and read the first few topics. They're not big/long. And it'll help get started.
Even simpler still: click on the links below and the links inside to watch the videos. Simple as A-B-C.
http://www.apple.com/findouthow/mac/
http://www.apple.com/findouthow/photos/
http://www.apple.com/findouthow/movies/idvd.html
http://www.apple.com/findouthow/movies/
-
save2600 wrote:
As spoken about in another thread recently, I was disappointed going from 10.4 to 10.5. I have a 2.1ghz G5 and noticed slowdown in everyday usage in 10.5's performance. There are a few major annoyances, such as how the Finder takes "forever" to load and it seems that the the OS loads and hogs more resources for stuff you normally wouldn't use anyway. I've also noticed delays in typing in Safari as well. 10.5 just seems sluggish compared to the 10.4.
You are correct from my observations as well. 10.5 feels slower than 10.4. Although I don't know everything here are some important notes:
Make sure you're comparing with "comparable" machines. What this means is: Leopard was not made for some of the older machines in mind, therefore it does not support them as well. As an example, on my PPC Mac Mini Panther is WAY faster when you go over the dock and have its Magnify feature enabled. Leopard feels and looks sluggish. The reason: the graphic stack has changed to the point that the poor ATI w/ 32MB in the Mac Mini isn't supported so well. In fact, 16bit modes are officially unsupported and in the older video cards these are faster, which means you end up with code going through the slow path.
A more correct comparison would be to compare the "recommended" machine configuration for each OS and compare those. Just like a video game which says: "recommended config 64MB RAM, minimum 8MB". Yo want to run all the tests on the config that's labeled as "recommended"
Another reason might be on how much RAM the machine has. If at any point there's swapping, performance will drop DRAMATICALLY. This is very critical. Leopard was targeted with machines that had at least 2x the RAM than those required for Tiger. But with the same RAM, yes Tiger will probably be faster on certain machines, just like Mac OS 1.0 would have been. Just like Amiga OS 1.x is faster than 3.x.
The other thing is to be aware of what's going on under the hood. As previously mentioned, if Spotlight is indexing your disk while you're testing, well things will definitely be sluggish.
Finally, good tuning helps a lot. You can turn off services you don't need or use (ex: Dashboard). Some reading and Googling is required for this, but there are tools like TinkerTool, OnyX, Deeper, etc.
Some hints:
http://macupdate.com/search.php?keywords=optimization&os=mac
http://macupdate.com/search.php?keywords=hidden+ui&os=mac
http://www.thexlab.com/faqs/performance.html
save2600 wrote:
there. HD failures are not common on a Mac like they are on
This is unsubstantiated. Macs use the same HDDs and same HDD technology. Failure of the HDD will be in the same levels. What WILL be different is file system failure, because Mac OS X uses HFS+ (typically) a journaled FS, which is pretty robust. However most other OSs have comparable FSs like Windows NTFS and Linux's EXT3, ReiserFS, JFS, etc.
save2600 wrote:
I currently run 10.5, but would like to go back to 10.4 someday. Oh - and that huge month tag that distracts from viewing iPhoto's thumbnails is annoying. I wish you could turn that off. There was also a few features taken away for unknown reasons from the latest iMovie/iDVD too that was mentioned and sorely missed by the editors at MacWorld that
Part of the reason is that the software (iMovie) was completely re-written. The whole paradigm of how to make a movie was changed with the new version of iMovie. Progress has its victims, which is complacency and comfort. BTW, I felt "the loss" as well, but only until I got used to the new way of doing things.
save2600 wrote:
I cannot remember. Don't use them too much. All I know is that the iLife suite took a hit too performance wise, but of course - there may be positive tradeoffs... just can't
Some of the reasons again is that these are targeted at the new line of multi-core, multi-Ghz Macs which are far more powerful. And a ton of new features of course:
(just a sample)
http://www.apple.com/ilife/iphoto/
http://www.tuaw.com/2009/01/06/apple-introduces-ilife-09-at-macworld-expo/
(more complete)
http://www.getlisty.com/conchovalleyhomepage/new-features-in-apples-ilife-09/
save2600 wrote:
think of any right now. All aspects of the computer seem slower with 10.5 on my system and I did a clean install too!
Yep, that will be the case in certain cases :-)
save2600 wrote:
Oh and ditching classic support was really idiotic. I really like the flexibility of running OS9 type stuff and had a few programs which still used it. My favourite version of Photoshop for instance. I've since replaced it with CS4, but what the heck - it's only money, right? :lol:
I hear you and I echo your sentiments often sometimes. However it's done in the name of progress and improving the user experience, which many of those older apps lacked, EVEN THOUGH they are familiar to us and we've grown to love them and even accept their imperfections (does anyone forget the days when Photoshop crashed and took their precious art and the whole OS with it? Or when you couldn't run Photoshop and ten other apps because you were afraid of one crashing app killing the other ones?)
Another very important reason is that of a workforce. If they had kept Classic OS around, they would have to support it, which means a lot of people would have to be working on it and not able to help with the other stuff. It's resources and money really. Backwards compatibility and "discontinued" products cost a lot.
save2600 wrote:
IMO - If you normally prefer stability and responsiveness to gimmicky bloat, you will be sorely disappointed in 10.5.
Argg... here we go again with "gimmicky" and "bloat". Read my first post on this thread.
save2600 wrote:
BTW: Anyone have any use for a boxed copy of 10.2?
Not boxed.
-
Wow, that's a lot of info. Thanx. I'll check the videos when I log in with the laptop.
I was not trying to insult Apple's latest efforts, nor do I feel that progress should slow to a more human pace (well, most times I do, grin). I simply want to match the OS to a good hardware deal (a 1.8GHz G5) and other stuff I've rescued. I will never embrace Apple tech/philosophy as my main vehicle, this machine will simply be a compatability fill-in for me. And it's cheap and obsolete. My computing passion is for Amiga technology. Sad in some eyes, but true.
Happy Easter.
-
@Tenacious
There is ONE MAJOR thing......and its THEE major thing about 10.5...........a matter of fact it is a turning point for me finally accepting Macs to have reached Amiga closeness as possible:
PUBLIC SCREENS aka SPACES.
This improves Prodctivity by like 1000% Now my Mac cant act as fast as I think. This is one if the best things about Amigas....To be able to use many screens with different apps at the same time.
Now you can Run XP and OSX in 2 seperate Public screens Natively and practically. Amazing! Get Parrallels!
-
@ Tenacious
All I can come up with is that you check system's recommended requirements against your hardware. I think the most recent OS, the better as long as it runs fast.
But the biggest leap in Mac OS (except for 9 -> X transition) was between 10.3 and 10.4. Just check out the features comparison on the website. Mac OS 10.5 has some improvements, mostly UI smoothing, making it more Vista-like (thus making it more 10.4-like :-))
-
Hi Gabe
Do you take long vacations? I only seem to run across you every few months. Grin
Your new Mac CAN act as fast as you think, right? (No machine is that fast, grin.) An Intel duo?
On an unrelated topic (I own the thread), did you ever buy that other MasPlayer-like devise? Did it work?
-
Tenacious wrote:
Hi Gabe
Do you take long vacations? I only seem to run across you every few months. Grin
Your new Mac CAN act as fast as you think, right? (No machine is that fast, grin.) An Intel duo?
On an unrelated topic (I own the thread), did you ever buy that other MasPlayer-like devise? Did it work?
Say what?? :-(
-
Sorry DiskDoctor, grin, that was for lierbag28. LOL!
-
Thanks da9000, lots of good info there.
About the ram thing though and my observations. I wouldn't dream of complaining going from one computer to the other with different OS's. My observations are based on the same configuration. Just going from 10.4 to 10.5. My 2.1ghz iMac has 2.5gb of ram, so ram should not be an issue. That's plenty for what I use my machine for. And I'm not "spotlighting" while working either. lol Tinkertool and I are old friends to be sure. What a great program. I'll have to look at those other recommendations of yours soon though.
Oh, one last point. I make the comment that PeeCee HD's fail more often than one used in a Mac because that has been my experience over the course of 25+ years. Yes, they may share the same technology now, but when you consider how the Mac's file system is so much different than the typical PeeCee's file system, I feel that comment IS more than substantiated. One only has to look at ScanDisk & defragging to understand Winblows is throwing data illogically all over the platter. That's a lot more wear and tear going on the entire mech of the HD compared to how the Mac reads/writes. Less wear and tear = reliability and fewer HD related problems. Again, in my experience.
-
Tenacious wrote:
Wow, that's a lot of info. Thanx. I'll check the videos when I log in with the laptop.
You're welcome. I hope they're as enlightening and entertaining to you as they were to me :-)
Tenacious wrote:
I was not trying to insult Apple's latest efforts, nor do I
Totally understand and even if you were, it's your right :-), although to someone else it might seem like lack of knowing certain things, if you know what I mean.
Tenacious wrote:
feel that progress should slow to a more human pace (well, most times I do, grin). I simply want to match the OS to a good hardware deal (a 1.8GHz G5) and other stuff I've
I hear ya. Believe me, even though I work with some very high tech stuff day to day, and all very fast-paced (I can't explain well, but if I told you, you'd flip - think of someone who's into making cars and works on a new car almost every other day or at least once a week - that's fast paced) many times I too want things to slow down to a more human pace. All over the board. I mean, forget the Mac, even the Amiga has so many features in its OS and the 3rd party software that are available for it, that I just never have time to play with them all. However, the problem is that in a capitalistic industry, if you slow down, you'll be eaten alive soon after. So they have to push.
Tenacious wrote:
rescued. I will never embrace Apple tech/philosophy as my main vehicle, this machine will simply be a compatability
I suggest you watch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Never_Say_Never_Again ;-)
On a more serious note, although I don't think today's Macs (as I've written in a previous post) or Apple are directly comparable with Amigas and Commodore, I do think that Apple has got the "Amiga bug", as I call it, which is to try to bring high-tech to larger number of people, but not only hardware tech, but also software tech: user experience is very very important and at the core of their products, much like for Jay Miner and crew, a very powerful and yet affordable, multitasking, easy to use computer was at the core of their vision. The deviation, again in my opinion, appears to be that Apple is much more "learned" in the industrial design and arts sector and so the polish on their products allow them to charge more for them. However, again as I've written in the past, you do get what you pay for, and if you think you can compare a PC with a Mac on price alone, I think you've completely missed what's "under your nose". There's a lot more put into a Mac than visible at a glance. You really need to use it for a while to realize.
Tenacious wrote:
fill-in for me. And it's cheap and obsolete. My computing passion is for Amiga technology. Sad in some eyes, but true.
Happy Easter.
I wouldn't call it sad. It's a dilemma I have for myself. I don't know if I should call myself a fool when I look in the mirror and realize how enamoured I still am with these wonderful, however very antiquated machines, or feel warm and fuzzy because they remind me of the good old days, remind me of great memories and of hopes and dreams of the grandest grandeur (can I double up on the grand?). At some point I have to also accept the future that is now and not lie to myself all the time. In the end though, I really don't find it necessary to negate one to have the other. I accept that the Amigas were the most absolutely amazing *home* computers of the 80s and early 90s and even today they can give serious competition in some areas, especially in the "limited resources" arena, however being 2009 right now, I concede that the better platform for doing day to day stuff or "modern" stuff is not an Amiga, but my trusty Macs. I'm happy with both and if the Amiga was to come back, depending on what it had on its agenda (VERY important, and it's what distinguishes a fanatic from an educated fan), I would jump right on it!
Cheers and Happy Easter to all!
-
save2600 wrote:
Thanks da9000, lots of good info there.
You're welcome! Glad I could provide it.
save2600 wrote:
About the ram thing though and my observations. I wouldn't dream of complaining going from one computer to the other with different OS's. My observations are based on the same configuration. Just going from 10.4 to 10.5. My 2.1ghz iMac has 2.5gb of ram, so ram should not be an issue. That's plenty for what I use my machine for. And I'm not "spotlighting" while working either. lol Tinkertool and I are old friends to be sure. What a great program. I'll have to look at those other recommendations of yours soon though.
Right. I meant in general. More specifically I meant people who complain when going from a 10.3.9 based PowerMac G4 @ 933Mhz with 512MB to 10.4 or 10.5. All I can think of is: "well, duh". 10.5 was never intended for those machines. In fact Apple forces you to upgrade by checking the minimum speed of the machine. If it's under 887Mhz (I think), it won't install. (of course the installer is simply using JavaScript, which means you can copy the installation DVD into a disk image that's writable, modify the JS by removing the check, and burn a new disk or blast it onto a hard drive partition and install from there - hint, hint)
Anyhow, that's what I meant. However, as I pointed out before, I do agree with your general observation: 10.5 seems slower on older (and usually non-Intel) hardware.
save2600 wrote:
Oh, one last point. I make the comment that PeeCee HD's fail more often than one used in a Mac because that has been my experience over the course of 25+ years. Yes, they may share the same technology now, but when you consider how the Mac's file system is so much different than the typical PeeCee's file system, I feel that comment IS more than substantiated. One only has to look at ScanDisk & defragging to understand Winblows is throwing data illogically all over the platter. That's a lot more wear and tear going on the entire mech of the HD compared to how the Mac reads/writes. Less wear and tear = reliability and fewer HD related problems. Again, in my experience.
I see what you mean. I think it's a valid point and very plausible even though I also don't have data. The reason I think it's plausible is from my experience too, but I would not necessarily blame just the filesystem. I mean FAT is crap, for sure, but the entire OS is a culprit. Very simple explanation: if an OS doesn't have a caching mechanism or simply bad caching, it will cause a lot more disk reading (and of course also lower performance). This will make the drive do more work, as you say. That will, theoretically (i don't have evidence) increase wear and tear. From my experience Windows has been typically really bad at disk IO. One of the worse parts of XP was how swap-happy it is. Even though you might have oodles of RAM, it will prefer to page out data/code before getting close to the RAM high watermark. It's always "on disk" as we say in operating system talk.
To take it one more step further, even bad architectural implementations at the core OS level will cause bad disk access patterns. For example, many modern OSs like Linux and Mac OS X feature a unified buffer cache (http://utcc.utoronto.ca/~cks/space/blog/unix/UnifiedBufferCache). (Not sure if Windows does have one today and if so which was the first that had it. My *guess* is that Vista might, Windows 7 must, and XP probably didn't) Meaning that all IO, including disk, but also VM and mmapped accesses go through a single cache. This utilizes memory much much better (since there are no duplicate pages all over RAM) and therefore better caching, less swapping!
So in general, now that I understood what you meant, I agree based on my experience, but without having empiric proof. I would love to have empiric proof though, so if anyone knows of any research in the field...
Here are a couple of studies that are related and very interesting, albeit very long and involved:
labs.google.com/papers/disk_failures.pdf
http://www.techpowerup.com/?25708
http://hardware.slashdot.org/hardware/07/02/21/004233.shtml
More here stuff:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_drive
OK, so since we're in the deep side of things by now, I suggest reading the following. There are some very good explanations as to OS X's performance. As always, it comes down to choices. What's more important? Powerful programming interfaces and interoperability or stupidly fast performance, yet braindead APIs and hard to program interfaces?
Search for "Some parts of OS X are much slower than others." in the following, and read the first couple of replies to that. But be forewarned, it's quite geeky :-)
http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/03/23/1717259
Cheers
-
As an apple tech for many (10+) years I would like to point some facts:
all apple OSes from 10.0 till 10.4.11 were more faster and more responsive in every newer update, 10.4.11 is the fastest OSX that currently exists.
The introduction of 10.5 was the worst product apple ever brought to market, because of MANY bugs and it felt like an elephant rather than a leopard.
with every update on the 10.5 it became better all the time but it was realy useful after 10.5.2 on intels and after 10.5.3 on PPC machines.
Currently on 10.5.6 the OS is ALMOST as stable as 10.4.11 but not as fast.
I belive the nature of Universal binaries of the OS will never let it be as fast as 10.4.x. 10.4.x came in 2 distributions and updates, different for intel and PPCs.
But feature wise (and Future wise) 10.5 is in advantage, most of newer apps requires it, and some features like spaces bring the OS to another usability and friendliness level. For slow machines <=800Mhz without core image graphics supported 10.4 is the best OS. for all other machines better get 10.5 that also in some actions is faster than 10.4 because of the use of core image graphics cards.
As it comes for hard drives......
both mac and PCs use the same hardware..
but till early G4s, apple used a custom firmware that it had enabled an option in every hard drives firmware about reliability, all HDs that was sold on the PC market had that option disabled. AFAIR that option made hard disk slower but more reliable.
-
@save2600:
You can download the Mac OS ROM Update from Apple's support site, or if you have a Mac capable of booting into OS 8.6-9.04, you can look in the system folder and use the "Mac OS ROM" file.
-
I've been testing the betas of Snow Leopard and I gotta say that it seems to have the features that I like in Leopard without a good many of the bugs. Watch for it!
-
persia wrote:
I've been testing the betas of Snow Leopard and I gotta say that it seems to have the features that I like in Leopard without a good many of the bugs. Watch for it!
And Snow Leopard is Intel only which is absolutely no help for the OP. :rtfm:
-
lofstudio wrote:
Save2600-- have you tried SheepShaver (http://gwenole.beauchesne.info//en/projects/sheepshaver) for classic emulation?
Multiple times I have tried running SheepShaver on my Intel Mac at work. It just crashes and crashes. I have plenty of experience with ShapeShifter and Fusion on the Amiga, as well as with actual 68k and PPC Mac hardware, so I'm pretty sure the instability of these two apps is just the fault of the apps themselves. One of them I got to "chime" but it would crash when I asked it to boot from CD.
There is very little reason to run SheepShaver or Basilisk II on a PowerPC Mac. Just run 10.4 and use Classic mode. If you need 10.5, partition your drive and have 10.5 on one partition and 10.4 on the other. If you need to run Classic, be under 10.4. If you have some piece of software which requires 10.5, boot into 10.5.
My guess is you'll be running under 10.4 more often... 10.5 is still kind of buggy and does indeed "feel" a little pokier on PowerPC hardware...
The only reason you'd want to run the emulators is if you have some software which won't run in Classic because it is too old, like some software which has been broken since System 7 came out, or since the PowerPC transition. If that is really a sticking point with you, eBay an SE/30 or something.
- t
-
StormLord wrote:
all apple OSes from 10.0 till 10.4.11 were more faster and more responsive in every newer update, 10.4.11 is the fastest OSX that currently exists.
The introduction of 10.5 was the worst product apple ever brought to market, because of MANY bugs and it felt like an elephant rather than a leopard.
Agree 100%...
One small example: on this 400 MHz Pismo, I thought 10.3.9 would be the fastest... since this Pismo has a slow G3, and old graphics... but actually 10.4.11 is faster! I have since wiped 10.3.9 off the computer...
-t