Benchmarks ≠ trends observed in real world use cases.
No they don't in isolation but subjective observations are equally useless.
Benchmarks ≠ trends observed in real world use cases.
My scroll bar moving more fluidly on my screen is not a subjective observation ?No they don't in isolation but subjective observations are equally useless.
I may have an unpopular and minority opinion, but I'm really no fan of smooth scrolling. The fact that WebGL enabled makes this enormously smoother confirms that smooth scrolling is hitting the CPU. If it wasn't then WebGL enabled wouldn't make a difference in this at least.Scrolling, alone, is enormously smoother with WebGL enabled, as opposed to leaving it turned off.
My scroll bar moving more fluidly on my screen is not a subjective observation
Fair enoughI have smooth scrolling specifically turned off for the reasons @eyoungren stated, it's not a desired feature for me.
I may have an unpopular and minority opinion, but I'm really no fan of smooth scrolling. The fact that WebGL enabled makes this enormously smoother confirms that smooth scrolling is hitting the CPU. If it wasn't then WebGL enabled wouldn't make a difference in this at least.
Got any benchmarks supporting that hypothesis?Since a core 2 duo is almost twice as fast as today's low end net books and chrome books
Why not get a 2011 i3 system for $60 that will run circles around a G5 (or netbook), in addition to being significantly faster than any Core 2 Duo as well? And I'm not even mentioning that it's miles ahead of the G5 in terms of energy consumption.that means for the first time in years I can Recommend, that people go and buy a used iMac G5 or power Mac for $50 and install powerfox on it. They will actually get a BETTER web experience on a PowerPC G5 over an Intel netbook with Chrome.
Then you get crappy windows or get stuck on Linux, why not use rock solid leopard?Got any benchmarks supporting that hypothesis?
Why not get a 2011 i3 system for $60 that will run circles around a G5 (or netbook), in addition to being significantly faster than any Core 2 Duo as well? And I'm not even mentioning that it's miles ahead of the G5 in terms of energy consumption.
If you just want to surf the web (which people using a Chromebook probably do), the OS doesn't really matter. Windows and Linux are rock-solid too, and, unlike Leopard, allow running current versions of several web browsers. Heck, you can run Chromium OS on a PC if you're keen on the Chromebook experience. The point I'm trying to make is that for a person who's just looking for an inexpensive machine to surf the web on, there are much better (as in faster, more secure, more energy-efficient) options than wasting money on 13-year-old hardware running a 12-year-old OS.Then you get crappy windows or get stuck on Linux, why not use rock solid leopard?
Guys, when you say "G5", please be more specific. Else it's an insult to every G5 Quad out there! Comparing it to a dirty-ass Core 2 Duo... ew!
Also, i3 has all the Intel ME troubles, don't forget! Even Core 2 Duo, which (often? always?) has removable Intel ME (unlike any Intel processor that came later, like the i3), it doesn't work with a lot of OSes once it's removed.
I'd prefer a 4 GHz 2-processor 44-core 196-threaded POWER9 Talos II with 240MB of L3 cache. Also no ME.Fair enough - a 3 GHz Core 2 Quad Extreme on a 945 chipset has no ME and still packs a punch. But let's go back on topic
Just wanted to say thank you for making this. I'm typing this post from my Sawtooth and I can tell the difference between using PowerUOC and the default TFF preferences file.
What kinds of differences are most noticeable over stock?
My Sawtooth has an upgraded CPU and graphics, so my results may be different from someone who has a Sawtooth with stock hardware. Scrolling is a lot smoother on PowerUOC. Youtube playback is smoother too with the latest version of PowerUOC. The video still stutters a bit, but it's watchable. Youtube is a slide show for me under stock TFF.
but to leverage all that it contains may actually require better machines, and for good reason.
I haven't done extensive testing on lower-spec machines.
And what is that reason? As the original patch was written with Pentiums in mind, why would there be a preference for G5 against G4?
But presumably have done extensive testing on higher spec machines...so what is that testing so at least we can follow that path and compare?