Leopard with 384 MB of RAM
From Alberto Crespo:
Dan,
I am really surprised at how well the 700 MHz with only 384 RAM runs, dvd
playback is smooth, Network Screen Share no prob, sharing my photo and
iTunes library through network awesome, Front Row works, smooth video
playback from network, buggy upgrading the RAM ASAP. The Family Pack
worked well for me.
Alberto,
It's becoming clear that Apple was very conservative
in setting system requirements for Leopard. We even have people running
350-400 MHz Macs who are pleased with performance.
Dan
867 MHz G4 Was 'Better' When Dual 800 Was
'Best'
From Charles J. Parker:
My only observation about the 867 MHz cutoff for Leopard is that it
actually "strands" those of us that went for the more expensive
dual processor 800 MHz available at
the time. I realize that this may have been the only time that Apple's
"flagship" model had a lesser sibling running a faster chip from the
same G-generation, but I kinda feel like I'm being punished for buying
the "best" machine when I realize that if I had not "gone for the gold"
I'd still be supported.
I'll probably resort to installing it via a work around (because I
know that if a single 867 with "lesser" innards can run Leo, then I
know that my trusty 800 MP sure as hell should be able to do it.)
Then again, it is kinda funny when you realize how many year-old PCs
can't run Vista - and here I am complaining that my 6-year-old Mac is
just starting to show its age.
Charlie
Charlie,
We don't know what reasoning Apple had for setting 867
MHz as the tipping point for Leopard, especially since we've received
reports from people happily running it on 350 MHz G4 systems. I agree
that it was poor form of Apple to leave out the dual 800 MHz
Quicksilver.
Dan
Leopard vs. Tiger on a PowerBook G4/550
From Richard Jordan:
I have installed Leopard on PowerBook G4
Titanium 550 using FireWire Target Disk mode from a 12" 1.5 G4 PowerBook. I have 1 gig of SDRAM and
an upgraded 80 GB Hitachi 5400 rpm hard drive.
Front Row runs fine and plays Video_TS files over the network. Video
playback can be a little choppy sometimes, but I think that's down to
the graphics card. I am unable to load DVDs recorded in DVD-R or DVD+R
on the standard DVD-ROM drive; I can't remember which I was able to
read before and System profiler no longer displays the types of media I
can play back. I am able to load standard Region 2 DVDs, and they all
playback fine in DVD player. I am unable to test Time Machine and and
haven't had a chance to test VLC, but to be honest I don't use it
anyway.
The Dock is a bit jerky when running the mouse over it and using
magnification, and Stacks work fine, but they do take a while to
appear. The fan looks as it should, but the grid is missing it's outer
board, as are the backgrounds to the names above icons in the dock (see
images attached). Oddly, taking a screen grab puts back the missing
boarder element on the grid view as seen in the attached screen
grab.
Generally most apps launch and take a little while longer than in
Tiger, the Finder seems fine but is a little slow. Preview has a major
bug: if you make a change to a file you are unable to save, the App
simple bombs every time, this could be down to my hardware not
supporting Core Image or something?
WiFi seems to be poor, even sat next to the wireless router, and I
don't get full reception . . . this could be a Leopard
problem though.
I have published Xbench results on the
Xbench Comparison Site, but I am afraid I didn't have the
benchmarks from before the update, hope it helps all the same.
Cheers
Richard
Richard,
Thanks for all the info. I did some rooting around on
the Xbench Comparison Site and found another G4/550 PowerBook with the
same hard drive as yours. Running Tiger, it scored 16.77, while your
machine with Leopard scored 15.34. Looking at individual tests,
"AltiVec Basic" is consistently about 30% lower with Leopard, while the
Allocate Memory test benchmarks 80% higher under Leopard, and Leopard
also does better with OpenGL - nearly 50% better than under Tiger.
Uncached hard drive results are better under Tiger, but by 20% or
less.
It looks like there are a whole lot of changes under
the hood, as the overall CPU score under Leopard is one-third higher
than under Tiger, Threads average about 20% slower, memory and graphics
about 15% higher, User Interface 30% slower (the Core Graphics load),
and hard drive results about 15% better.
Apple has reprioritized things in Leopard, and older,
slower hardware where the G4 CPU has to handle the Core Graphics load
are paying the penalty when it comes to the user interface.
I've also looked
at a pair of 2.5 GHz Power Mac G5 Quad results under 10.4.9 and
10.5 on the same computer. Overall, Leopard scores 1.6% lower than
Tiger - 0.3% better on the CPU test, 20.3% slower on Threads, 7.3%
faster on Memory (a whopping 52.3% on memory allocation), 26% better on
Quartz Graphics, 1.6% higher on OpenGL Graphics, 28.7% slower on User
Interface, and 15.8% lower on Disk Test.
Finally, I found an Intel iMac that had been benchmarked
under both 10.4.10 and 10.5. The overall score was 1.3% lower under
Leopard: 13.8% better CPU score, 21% worse on Threads, 8.7% higher for
Memory (an incredible 115% higher for memory allocation!), 19.7% better
with Quartz Graphics, 36% better with OpenGL, 30.8% worse in User
Interface, and 18% lower doing Disk Test.
Conclusion: Whatever your hardware (G4, G5, Intel),
threads are about 20% slower under Leopard, memory access is better,
Quartz graphics are 15-25% better, the user interface is about 30%
slower, and CPU utilization is slightly improved.
Dan
Cheers for that Dan
I did have a feeling that everything was running a lot slower and
really that was to be expected. I am looking to get a new Macbook Pro
early next year so I'm sure my Leapord experience will be better on a
more optimised system.
Leopard is good but it does have some issues and hopefully a lot of
those will be fixed in the 10.5.1 update.
Thanks again
Richard
933 MHz Digital Audio Power Mac Dual?
From Jerome Littleton:
Maybe you can help, I purchased a Digital Audio Power Mac Dual G4/933 on eBay.
Model #M5183. I cannot find reference anywhere that Apple made a Dual
933 in any model. I am running Tiger 10.4.10, I have read that Tiger
has issues identifying the Digital Audio model. I have input the serial
number at Apple, and it is definitely a Digital Audio model.
Is it possible that this is really a dual 533. The previous owner
stated this was a special order from Apple by a corporation called
Mayo. This is what comes up in hardware over view:
- Machine Name: Power Mac G4
- Machine Model: PowerMac3,4
- CPU Type: PowerPC G4 (11.3)
- Number Of CPUs: 2
- CPU Speed: 933 MHz
- L2 Cache (per CPU): 1 MB
- Memory: 1 GB
- Bus Speed: 133 MHz
- Boot ROM Version: 4.1.8f5
- Serial Number: XB12318ZKXS
- Sales Order Number: 0100422023XB12318Z1234123412341234
Just trying to find out if this is an issue with Tiger or if I
really have Dual G4 933s, or it is really a Dual 533? I removed the
heat sink, and it is an Apple processor board, not an after market.
Thanks, Jerome Littleton
Jerome,
The XB that begins the serial
number indicates that this was not a stock machine. Although the
Digital Audio was introduced at 466-733 MHz and included a 533 MHz dual
model, yours was produced late in its production life - early June
2001. At that time, Apple was preparing the Quicksilver Power Mac G4 for mid-July
release, and even that topped out at 867 MHz for a single CPU or 800
MHz for a dual processor machine.
I'm not familiar with any problems with Tiger
misreporting CPU speed in Digital Audio Power Macs - even Google is
coming up dry. This is the first I've heard of a 933 MHz dual G4, and
I'm sure Mayo must have paid dearly for these computers, as Apple
didn't officially release a model this
fast until January 2002. You apparently have a genuine rarity on
your hands.
Dan
Leopard's CPU Load
From Frantisek:
Hello,
I got idea that I can not do myself. It would be nice if some
readers that already installed Leopard would show what is Leopard
System load is in Activity Monitor after clean start up, especially on
old hardware. If somebody could compare it to Tiger, it would be even
greater.
Best wishes
Frantisek
Frantisek,
Good suggestion. I'll post it to the Mailbag to see
what kind of response we get.
XResourceGraph
is another great free program for tracking CPU usage, among other
things.
Dan
Installing Leopard on an Upgraded Power Mac
From David Stein:
Dan,
It still isn't clear to me. Will Leopard install directly on my
G4 Digital Audio with 1 GB RAM,
upgraded to 1.2 MHz G4 processor? I don't need the latest and greatest
computer, but I can see where Leopard may have value. Backup is now a
big deal: I do direct backup to FireWire drives. It's incompatibility
with web browsers, and Internet "exchange" that is the real issue.
Thanks
David Stein
David,
I don't have a Digital Audio Power Mac or a copy of
Leopard, but the field reports I've read say that you cannot simply
insert the Mac OS X 10.5 installer and run it. You either need to
create a hacked copy or use another Mac to do the installation.
That said, it's possible that the installer will see
the upgraded CPU and run. It seems to work for some people with
upgraded systems.
Dan
More About Leopard on an Upgraded Pismo
From Adem Rudin, who is running
Leopard on a Pismo with a 550 MHz G4 upgrade, 1 GB of RAM, and a
5400 rpm hard drive:
A short followup:
VLC will play DVDs, but with such a slow frame rate that the video
is unwatchably choppy. The same thing happens when playing ripped .iso
files as well.
Leopard seems very confused about the removable DVD drive. The only
way to eject a disk once it is mounted is to physically eject the DVD
drive itself, reinsert, and hit the "disk eject" button on the drive
before it has a chance to mount the disk.
The bottom line is, Leopard does work on an upgraded Pismo, but is
really confused about what to do with the multiple
battery/device bays. Once (if) Apple releases the kernel source, I may
poke around and see if I can fix things, but for now, I may be swapping
back to Tiger on this machine. Tiger "just works" on it.
-Adem
Adem,
Thanks for the follow-up. Except for DVD and second
battery issues, it sounds like Leopard works decently on a G4-upgraded
Pismo.
Dan
Leopard on an 800 MHz G4 Quicksilver
From Scott Buckner:
I have Leopard installed on my 800 MHz G4
Quicksilver (1.5 GB RAM, ATI 9600 Pro AGP with 64 MB of video
memory). Video card I bought on eBay from applemacanix. It is
a modified card from a G5.
I installed Leopard using a MacBook 1.83 GHz Core Duo on to a USB
drive. I used the same procedure as FireWire Target Mode, only I used a
USB drive instead. I can say this: at 12 MB a sec, copying was very
very slow, but it worked.
I have a third party DVD burner installed in my Mac (Lite-On DVD-RW
LH-16W1P). This drive worked under Tiger and works again under Leopard.
DVD player works with no noticeable lag.
All of the eye candy transparencies, Time Machine animation, Cover
Flow, and Spaces, work very well
Here is what Apple Profiler said about my video card:
HW191D:
- Resolution: 1440 x 900 @ 60 Hz
- Depth: 32-bit Color
- Core Image: Hardware Accelerated
- Main Display: Yes
- Mirror: Off
- Online: Yes
- Quartz Extreme: Supported
- Rotation: Supported
Can anyone tell me what the difference is between "Hardware
Accelerated" and "Supported" in Core Image means?
Okay, I have taken enough of your time. I'm really happy with
Leopard on my QS.
Thanks
Scott Buckner
Scott,
Thanks for your report. You must have the patience of
Job to use a hard drive at USB 1.1 speed! USB 2.0 has so become the
norm that I now have two USB 2.0 cards in my Power Mac G4 - printers,
flash drive, film scanner, video converter, etc. Only the keyboard,
mouse, and UPS are plugged into USB 1.1 here.
"Hardware Accelerated" means that your graphics card
supports Core Image, so your CPU doesn't have to handle it. "Supported"
for Quartz Extreme means that your graphics card fully supports Quartz
Extreme.
Dan
Leopard on a 1 GHz Sawtooth
From Vy Tri Truong:
Hi Dan,
I just thought I'd let you know I successfully installed Leopard on
a first generation, non-uni-N "Sawtooth" without any work around. The
machine was originally a 350 MHz model. It has been upgraded with a
single 1.0 GHz 256K L2 OWC Mercury G4 card, 1 GB of RAM, and a Radeon
9800 Pro 128 Mac Edition. I ran the installer from the internal
SuperDrive, and it was very happy to do it's thing. Leopard runs just
fine on the machine (once Spotlight and Time Machine have done their
thing).
I enjoy the site, keep up the good work!
Vy Tri Truong
Thanks for the report.
Dan
Curious About Leopard on G3 and Older Macs
From Joseph Burke:
I was looking at all the models that people have been trying
unsupported Leopard installs on, and it it surprises me that nobody
seems to have tried getting it running on a beige Power Mac or
comparable PowerBook yet. Maybe we need to put a call out to all the
Mac hackers with G4 upgraded beige machines and PowerBooks to attempt a
Leopard install and report back how it went.
Joseph,
I received two reports late last week (they're in
Monday's Mailbag) of Leopard running on G4-upgraded Pismos. Both users
had 550 MHz upgrades and said performance was a bit sluggish. One also
noted that DVD Player didn't work.
I haven't yet heard from beige G3, WallStreet, or
Lombard owners with G4 upgrades. Or, for that matter, from any of the
handful of G3 iMac owners with G4 upgrades. We do have one person
working on an upgraded Blue & White G3.
Dan
I'm really waiting for someone to install it to a 7300-9600 machine.
That would be interesting. Those things run forever.
Joseph,
Yeah, they do, and I'm sure someone is going to try it
eventually. I've asked on our Unsupported OS X List to see if anyone
has tried it yet. With all the architectural changes in Leopard, it
could be the end of the line.
Dan
Dan Knight has been publishing Low
End Mac since April 1997. Mailbag columns come from email responses to his Mac Musings, Mac Daniel, Online Tech Journal, and other columns on the site.
