Linux on PowerPC
From Nathan Hill:
I'm just responding real quick to your conversation about Linux as
one option on PPC Macs to keep up-to-date software.
Like another reader pointed out, support for PPC machines in Linux
is fading quickly. I just don't think there is a large enough base of
support and programmers for the work to be done. Plus, as long as Apple
keeps the specs of motherboards and other pieces of hardware under
wraps, the Linux community won't be able to write appropriate
drivers.
Case in point, drivers for Broadcom devices in Linux (like AirPort
cards) may never be a reality. So, if you have a Mac with an AirPort
card, you will need to get a different wireless adapter or plug in
through ethernet. Apple could easily remedy this by releasing some sort
of specs for the cards . . . or even making one available for
the open source community to use.
Other examples from my own experience - Mac video card drivers may
also be non-existent. Though ATI or Nvidia might have released some
binary drivers for PCs, they won't work on their Mac versions. Power
management is also atrocious. If you don't mind your PPC's fan being on
full blast during use, it will work - laptops then become terribly
noisy. Toss in sleep as another feature that may or may not work.
Of course, your mileage will vary. In my experience, Xubuntu worked
okay on a Pismo PowerBook
G3 (500 MHz G3) with a generic Orinoco wireless PC Card. Ubuntu
worked decently on a PowerBook G4 12" (1.5 GHz),
but the fans were on full blast. I could also never enable any cool
video features despite the PowerBook's ample video RAM. Ubuntu or
Xubuntu LiveCDs would freeze during boot on a Digital Audio Power Mac.
I've also been tinkering with OpenSUSE, and I need to give Slackintosh
a better go. Also, Debian may have a little more PPC support than
Ubuntu even. However, I cannot seriously recommend any of them unless
you want something to tinker with and spend time getting to work
properly. I think the PPC guys in the Linux are doing great work with
what they have though.
Finally, the Achilles heel for PPC Linux is the lack of a real
simple multi-boot option. I haven't found one yet. I would love one to
look just like the "option" boot where you can get a clear, simple
display of all startup disk options available on your machine. No text.
No need to reformat the entire partition table and fight with where
Linux and Mac OS X sit on certain partitions. Maybe it's wishful
thinking, but until that happens, Linux is better on a LiveCD than on
the hard drive.
Thanks,
Nathan Hill
Nathan,
Thanks for sharing your experiences. I've tried a
Ubuntu LiveCD on three different Macs - 400 MHz iMac G3, 1.25 GHz eMac,
dual 1 GHz Power Mac G4 - with no luck at all. I'm downloading
Xubuntu 6.06 and plan on trying it next. [Update: I can boot my iMac
into Xubuntu 6.06. I see the startup screen, see the list of modules
loading, but end up with a black display. Closer!]
Yes, lack of support for AirPort could be a huge
factor, as more and more of us live the wireless life. The one error
message I was on my eMac before it gave up was about the AirPort
Extreme card being unsupported.
It sounds like Apple will be putting the focus
specifically on Intel-based Macs with Snow Leopard. Let's hope that as
they make the move away from supporting PowerPC Macs, they'll release
the information the Linux community needs to get the most out of our
old Macs when our old versions of the Mac OS are no longer sufficient
to the task.
Dan
Linux on PPC Discussion
From Otto Schlosser:
Hi, Dan. My response to the "which distro?" question is the same one
I always give when someone asks me which PC or OS to get - "What do you
want to do with it?" I run a Windows network, use Macs by choice, and
tinker with Linux, so I can usually give a balanced response.
In this case, I have an idle Sawtooth G4 that is too underpowered to
run Tiger well, so I made a project of trying PPC Linux on it.
Unfortunately, none of the major distros can cover all my bases -
either they have trouble with my network, or they can't handle
streaming media, or they have drivers missing. I continue to try out
new ones as I become aware of them, so it has become a lot like playing
golf - I may never be able to do everything I want, but I can always
try to learn from my mistakes and improve a little more.
Otto Schlosser
Otto,
At this point, I'm only trying LiveCDs. Ubuntu 8.0.4
didn't work with the three Macs I tried, but I'm currently downloading
Ubuntu 6.06, Kubuntu 6.06, and Xubuntu 7.10 to see if I might have
better luck with those versions. All I'm looking for is an operating
system that will work properly without excessive fiddling and let me
browse the Web.
Dan
Linux & *BSD on Older Machines
From Tom Buskey:
I've been using Linux, MacOS, Sun Unix since '92 or so. Pre web.
I ran Linux on my 486, but damned if I can find a halfway modern
distribution for anything before a Pentium II.
I tried running Linux on a Sun Sparc system, but damned if I could
find a modern distribution.
I once tried to run Linux on my Power Mac 7100 but got hung up on
mklinux. And where is it now?
I once tried to get Gentoo on an iBook 800 MHz dual USB.
I run Fedora 9 on an AMD AM2 system and my Intel Dual core at
work.
I run Ubuntu 8.04 on my P4m 2.4 GHz laptop.
I used to run Red Hat 6.2 on a P150 laptop.
I ran NetBSD on the 486, the Sparc and a IIcx.
I've run OpenBSD there as well.
The good news is that I can find recent builds of NetBSD/OpenBSD for
the 486/Sparc/IIcx and probably the 7100. I'm convinced running recent
Linux on anything other then fairly current x86 hardware is doomed to
fail. The base supported hardware falls off eventually.
I've been looking for a Linux to run on a P166/32 MB/500 MB laptop
to run as a picture frame. I suspect I'm going to have to go back to an
old distribution.
If you want current security patches, you're going to have to run a
BSD I suspect.
If you don't care, think of it like sticking with System 7.5.5
Caveat Linux
From John Muir:
Hi Dan,
Linux is something of a panacea. You have essentially limitless
freedom to hack, and tinker, and trial and troubleshoot any way that
you like. Great stuff. But then you realise you've been at it all day
and scarcely made any progress. If you've really caught the bug, days
are just the start of it.
With great power comes great responsibility.
When you run Linux you have to look after yourself. That is the
fundamental difference. If software updates go bad, the cleanup is
yours to do and can be very complicated. If hardware is unsupported by
a community maintained driver, then you're out of luck. Don't forget
the limited selection of commercial software. Not many people champion
the open-source GIMP over Photoshop, though it is a much more even
choice between OpenOffice and Microsoft Office.
Apple are a hardware company first and foremost. It's not their main
interest that we can run our machines for many years beyond their
purchase and warranties, as they really need to keep on selling
systems. More than that: Apple prides itself on seamless user
experience. The contrast with Linux is striking. Its openness and lack
of centralisation results in a very different environment, further even
than Windows from the integration of "it just works" that we are so
used to.
Linux is a promising option for PowerPC Macs, as they are inevitably
left behind by Apple. I've run the latest Ubuntu on my 867 MHz 12" PowerBook G4 -
first from the Live CD and next from a partition on its upgraded 250 GB
drive - and in most areas it is fully functional. But it certainly no
longer feels like a Mac - until I've booted back into Leopard.
(Naturally, I've upgraded the RAM as high as it will go. There was a
big difference between 640 and 1152 megabytes in Leopard which wasn't
nearly as obvious back in Tiger. I've even been learning to code with
the latest Xcode and iPhone SDK, which although unsupported on PowerPC
do work for the most part on my mobile Mac. But it is definitely better
to have an Intel desktop back at home for whenever my five-year-old
machine's shortcomings catch up with me!)
You were right to frame the choice as between being left behind on a
no longer current version of Mac OS X, or keeping up to date with
Linux. That is definitely one way to look at it. Experience, however,
tells me that there's more distance between the platforms than there is
between each one's regular releases. Linux may be a good way to
experiment with older hardware once it really is left out in the cold
by Cupertino, but I think it's likely better to keep the system's last
supported OS X handy as well, even if it is eventually forgotten by the
latest software.
As I've often heard at Low End Mac: even when your Mac is finally
unsupported by the latest OS X, it still does more now than it did the
day you bought it. Overall, I think it's a good equation.
John Muir
John,
Thanks for sharing your perspective. Yes, it's always
been true that by the time a Mac is no longer supported, the last
version of the Mac OS to run on it will make it much more capable
machine than it was when it first came out - perhaps slower with all
the extra functionality, but definitely more capable.
Apple and Linux are absolutely on opposite ends of the
spectrum: Apple gives us the "it just works" experience and innovates.
Linux provides a "we're working on it" experience with lots of rough
edges as it mimics Unix, Windows, and the Mac OS to varying extents.
It's an awesome undertaking, but there is the old adage about too many
cooks....
Anyhow, good advice to keep a late version of the Mac
OS on old Mac hardware alongside whatever Linux distro you want to
work/play/experiment with.
Dan
Old Macs Not Up to the Modern Web
From Gary Kohl, following up on Left Behind by OS X:
Whether or not you are proposing a number of versions of OS X, I
believe that that is how it would be perceived by the public. The
differences between the versions of Vista I think do make for a
relevant comparison. All use the Vista core, just as you are proposing
using the OS X.5 core. The difference between the Basic and Premium
versions is just what you are proposing for the Mac OS - turning off
the fancy GUI. But all this gains you in the Windows world is the
ability to run Vista on an XP level machine. I believe that turning off
the eye candy in OS X.5 would gain only a similar increase in
compatibility - you still would not be able to run it on a G3. The
muscle in OS X gains you much more than the pretty interface -
it's necessary for multimedia advances (think Core Audio and Video),
for multiprocessor and multithreading functioning, etc. - the core of
the OS is much more robust to cope with much more robust hardware and
more demanding applications, not only to make things look pretty.
The very fact that Apple has taken computer out of its name
is an indication of the importance of audio and video to the company.
In pursuit of their presumed goal of multimedia dominance through
iTunes, QuickTime, the iPod and Apple TV, they will be forced to
continue to load the OS with power hungry features in support of these
products (which are undeniably very important to their bottom line
these days).
I also believe that this level of OS power is necessary even for
mundane tasks such as the Internet. Flash and Java, along with
streaming audio and video, have come to dominate so much of the
Internet these days for most users that you need not only a modern
processor but a modern video card and fast bus and memory architecture
to cope. Compared to my Mac
Pro, my 1.25 dual
processor MDD runs Flash notably slower even with 1.25 GB of RAM
and a 64 MB video card. Now it may be that you intend to use your
classic Mac for sites which are primarily static in nature (such as
LEM), but the truth is that the vast majority of Internet users are
looking for those media rich features, and browsers will be programed
to cope with them.
This is not the same Internet as 10 years ago, and the changes it
has undergone will only accelerate. This is why I do think that the
DVD/Betamax comparison is a valid one. We may still call them computers
and refer to the Web as the Internet, but the changes in both have been
so vast that their 10-year-old selves differ radically from their
modern counterparts. Static web pages served to 56k modems then;
streaming video and audio over DSL and Fios now. Glorified word
processors and calculators then; content creation on even the most
basic computer now (yes, I know I'm stretching the truth here, Macs
have always been used for content creation - but for home use that
wasn't their primary focus. Today, people see their computers as audio
and video centers in a way that wasn't possible previously). Audio and
video usage dominate the desktop today, and Apple has perceived this
change better than any other computer company and has succeeded wildly
because of it. I would argue that you would have to gut the OS of this
type of functionality to get it to run on 10-year-old machines, not
just reduce the GUI, and Apple has absolutely no incentive for doing
that. It goes against every trend in the industry.
I do understand the desire for a modern browser for older machines
because just last year I had to give someone one of my Macs so that
they could run OS X to use modern browsing features. But I would
bet that 95% of those users who might switch to some version of Linux
to get a modern browser would come running back in short order. Linux
doesn't "just work", and that's what Mac users are looking for and are
used to. It does not do audio and video with ease. Even with Linux this
is the new Internet, and the vast majority of people will want to use
all of its features - and Linux doesn't make that easy. Getting Flash
and Java and streaming audio and video to work under Linux can be a
daunting task - not to mention no iTunes Store.
You don't have to have a new car to drive the expressway, but a
10-year-old car is not the same as a 10-year-old computer. Computer
years are closer to dog years than human years, and unfortunately some
folks want to drive a Model T on the Autobahn.
Thanks for the well thought out (as always) and articulate reply
(wish I wrote so well). The great thing about LEM for me - beyond it
being a great resource for my older equipment - is the way it makes me
really think about the computing world. Much appreciation and continued
success.
Gary Kohl
Gary,
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Yes, the nature of
computing has changed. A dozen years ago, Apple made a big splash with
its first PowerPC Performas, full-fledged multimedia powerhouses that
could use CD-ROM based software, access the Internet, and capture and
edit video. (See The Martinettis Bring Home a Computer, Apple's
30-minute infomercial from 1994, broken up into 1/2/3/4/5/6 segments on
YouTube.)
We may damn the Performa 5200 and 6200 as the worst hardware designs in Macintosh
history, but at the same time the introduced people to things that
would be part of their futures - eWorld for connecting with others,
importing and working with video, included multimedia software, etc.
Nearly 15 years later we take all of that for granted.
Today we wonder how
we can get better YouTube performance from an old G3 iMac - and we
find that an older, less taxing version of Mac OS X (10.3.9) works
better than the last version to support the G3 (10.4.x). And that you
can fiddle with lower screen resolution and going to thousands of
colors to smooth things out a bit. No, it's not perfect, but it's
impressive what these old Macs are capable of.
Over 10 years time, we've gone from 200-300 MHz G3
Macs with a single CPU to dual-core iMacs running in the 2-3 GHz range.
It's a huge leap in processing power, and nobody is going to say that
these antiquated Macs are ideal for streaming video on the Web, but
that doesn't mean they need to be retired. They're going to be great
for word processing, spreadsheets, email, basic Web browsing, managing
your iTunes library, storing your collection of digital photos,
etc.
There are basically two options when you find a
website your browser can't handle: upgrade your system or find a
browser that can handle it. Our hope is that when your Mac running
Jaguar, Panther, or Tiger runs out of Mac browser options, Linux will
be able to provide access to up-to-date browsing technology on those
old Macs. This would be helped vastly if the Mac/Linux community would
work together and focus on a single distro or family of distros rather
than being spread out over so many different PPC Linux projects.
Dan
Linux: Preparing for the Worst
From John Hatchett:
Loved your column about the use of Linux in older Macs. I have the
same concerns about using PowerPCs with future versions of OS X.
That's one of the reasons that I put Xubuntu on my Pismo. I want to be
prepared, just in case.
You have started a interesting discussion, but I am in agreement.
With Xubuntu, G3 Macs can still be useful computers.
In all probability, I will have to buy an Intel machine in the near
future. I have some plans to mod an old Next
Cube and put a mini in
it. I figure that a mini is going to be the cheapest way to get an
Intel Mac. Apple may be driving me to buying Intel, but I will try to
do it on the cheap.
John,
I see Linux on PPC as a way for preparing for the
worst. At some point some technology is going to come along that isn't
going to be supported on PowerPC Macs with Panther, Jaguar, or Tiger -
but it will probably be available to Linux. If we can keep PPC Linux
alive and well, we may not have to abandon our old Macs when that new
technology arrives.
Dan
Ubuntu vs. Kubuntu vs. Xubuntu
From Jeffrey Kafer:
Dan,
Not all Linux Distros follow the same model even though they share
similar kernels (some patch their kernels and some use unpatched
"vanilla" kernels) and GNU toolsets, they can have radically different
installation and user experiences.
At one end of the spectrum are the meta-distros like Gentoo, that
bend over backwards to make everything possible a choice. If you want
custom, that's the way to go, but there is little or no default
anything. Installation is for the patient, well informed, and well
read. For example, Gentoo can be used with KDE, Gnome, Xfce, and
numerous other window managers and desktop environments, but not one
comes by default. You must choose one. Since the optimum method is to
compile from source with kernel options, and compiler/optimization
flags selected for your specific platform, one should expect several
days or more to install the OS and some applications.
One the other hand are some streamlined Distros for x86 that
basically provide you only one choice for everything, such as Zenwalk.
Its not intended to be highly configurable; it is intended to work one
way. Flexibility is sacrificed, but stability and performance are both
very good.
Then there are the majority that are in between. They give you a
default and permit you to change it. Ubuntu is that way. It provides
the Gnome desktop environment, however you could change it to something
else like KDE by using the provided tools to download and install the
KDE package. However, if you really want Ubuntu with KDE, you can get
Kubuntu and KDE is the default. If you want Ubuntu with Xfce, then you
can get Xubuntu and Xfce is the default. There is even a Fluxbuntu for
x86 that use the Fluxbox window manager by default. In other words, its
the same thing bundled differently, trying to be easiest (works right
out of the box) for the widest possible audience.
Of these, I prefer Xubuntu, which uses Xfce, simply because it is
the most responsive of the bunch that I've tried. That said, I've
tested a lot of Linux Distros for PPC Macs, and I've found every Linux
distro more CPU and RAM demanding, including longer boot times, than
Mac OS X. The only thing I've found less demanding than the
current Mac OS, other than a previous Mac OS, is a *BSD variant running
a light desktop like Window Maker.
Regarding desktop environments, I might characterize them as
follows: KDE is the biggest, attempts to be the most integrated with
itself and its K-Apps and perhaps the most Windows-like. Gnome is #2 of
the big two in numerous ways, but I've found it to be a more enjoyable
experience and more stable. I am a bigger fan of the smaller desktop
environments and window managers like Xfce, Window Maker, and the like.
I have never had any kind of performance issues or stability problems
with the likes of those.
I may have misspoke in my earlier email. It was probably the Xubuntu
version 8.04 for PPC that I was not able to find when I last looked.
Judging by your lack of success with Ubuntu, perhaps I should consider
my self lucky that I didn't find it.
Cheers,
Jeffrey
Jeffrey,
I've downloaded Ubuntu 6.06 and Xubuntu 7.10 LiveCD
images and burned them to disc. Doing the same with Kubuntu, but the
download manager says that one is going to take hours. Next project
will be trying these discs in the 400 MHz iMac.
I wish Apple would provide different desktop
environments for those who don't need or don't really have the hardware
for the latest and greatest GUI. Imagine a version of Leopard that
could run a very simple GUI on servers and old Macs. It could emulate
or simplify a lot of the fancy things Leopard does and make it more
widely accessible. But Apple ties the desktop and core operating system
together very tightly - and makes the bulk of its money from selling
computers - so there's little incentive to do so.
That's one place where Linux gets it right - and even
Vista, which degrades its GUI for older hardware.
Dan
Leopard/New iMac Nightmares
From John Campbell:
I'm surprised that my post actually received a response, but not
really by the response itself. Actually I appreciate both yours and Mr.
Lizarraga's responses. And although I am inclined to disagree with
Lizarraga's conclusion and underlying message, he was very polite in
his response. That being said, I do feel there is some questionable
logic at play, especially with regard to who really is to blame in my
situation (Is Apple, by default, infallible? Is any consumer
electronics company?). Of course, I'm not really concerned with who is
to blame. I would just like my product to work, at least as advertised,
and if that expectation is too high then perhaps their commercials need
to change to "It mostly works" or "It works if you buy the newest model
with the OS preinstalled." It's not that I'm naive in believing that
things will always just work (that's just stupid), but there is an
underlying method and philosophy to Apple's strict integration
[control] of their software and hardware. The fewer models available
make it possible for them to test their reasonably software products on
most available stock configurations. But if this philosophy falters,
then there's no real functional advantage to buying Apple over building
your own inexpensive OS X-compatible box.
On the subject of Firmware Updates:
Dan and Felix both mentioned the Firmware Update issue. Over the
course of the two times I installed Leopard, the first time the
Software Update dialog prompted an EFI firmware update. I followed the
instructions to listen for the unusual tone and my firmware was then
updated. I've actually run the firmware update twice just to make sure
it was in place for the next install (although since its home is on the
hardware, I was probably being over-cautious). I forgot to mention that
I did this, but I guess since I assumed it was pretty much automatic
during the install process, I neglected to include that
information.
It's actually a good thing that Mac OS X alerts me of firmware
updates... This is quite a switch from the Windows world, where most if
not all of my PC's have gone almost their whole lives without BIOS and
some driver updates.
On the relative obscurity of my problem:
I would expect that the number of people who actually have the
24-inch white iMac model isn't quite as large as those who have the
20-inch and 17-inch models. Perhaps this is a wild assumption on my
part, but these other models are more affordable and in ampler supply.
If I'm not mistaken, the 24-inch white iMac model was one of the later
incarnations of that lineup before the aluminum editions came out and
Tiger was the stock OS. Tiger on my iMac performed without a hitch, so
I could see why there isn't a rush for these customers to run out and
pick up a copy of Leopard. But I'm not the only one. Also, check the
last post here on Apple's forums.
I think it's just a matter of the probability that results in my
obscure situation:
- Who actually has the model I have?
- How many even care about running Leopard if their stock OS runs
fine?
- How many are reporting the issue or discussing it?
I think I will move to Tiger for the time being, but I can't absolve
a company of an error it is clearly responsible for. This is where I
have to disagree with Felix's response. If it is a hardware issue, PC
Connection didn't make the computer. They simply sold it. They didn't
make the software, they just included it. While I don't have any
problem holding them to customer satisfaction, I find it puzzling that
people will find it more reasonable to blame a company that simply
sells the product over one that actually designed and manufactured the
product. This sort of apologist attitude is growing with Apple's fan
base, and I think a healthy amount of criticism holds a company
accountable, making it possible for us to be consumers and consumer
advocates. If we allow our enthusiasm for Apple's aesthetics and
innovation to prevent us from being critical of their missteps, then we
do a disservice to each other because there will be no motivation for
them to improve.
Some notes:
-I thought these lines were funny...
"It does not take Sherlock Holmes to figure out that
if a new computer is experiencing problems that none of your old
machines is having, and that most people haven't even heard of, then
the new computer should be the possible culprit."
-I thought my old computer was the culprit! Elementary, my dear
Watson!
**cue bubble-pipe**
"Now, if he goes through the replacement process, say,
twice, and all the machines suffer the same issues, then I say: Go
blame Apple, snotty Apple fanatics, even smug-looking-for-hire Justin
Long! But, as of now, I don't see any evidence of Leopard or Apple
being responsible for Campbell's particular dilemma..."
-Replacement? Is it possible for the white iMacs? I don't dig the
aluminum/glossy combo. They look slick, but my very well lit room could
be a glare nightmare and I happen to like the white frame... it seems
more 'Apple' than the newer iMacs. (But images do seem to 'pop' with
richer contrast on the new glossy displays.)
-Apologies to Justin Long. I don't find his commercials nearly as
annoying as many people have reported on these internets. If I buy
Die Hard With A Vengeance on iTunes, will Mr. Long forgive
me?
John,
It's not an easy call when you upgrade both hardware
and OS at the same time. Your best bet is to call the local Apple
Store, assuming your are so blessed as to have one, and schedule an
appointment with a genius. These guys (all the ones I've met thus far
are male) know their stuff.
If that's not possible, your next recourse would be
returning the product to PC Connection - not because they built it, but
because they sold it to you. While Apple is ultimately responsible, the
reseller acts as its agent in this kind of transaction.
Another possibility would be to find a local
authorized Apple dealer or repair center.
But maybe you're lucky and it's just some weird
interaction between your hardware and Leopard, and going to Tiger will
give you a perfectly stable machine. You'd still want to figure out the
problem, because at some point you may need to go to Leopard. (And it
could be any part of the computer, such as a RAM module or hard drive
that Apple bought from another company.)
Every company produces a klinker now and then - and
every good company will stand behind its product until you are happy
with it. I'm sure Apple will take care of things one way or
another.
Let us know if Tiger works for you.
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.
