The quote was "OS X is more optimized for the G4" - no mention of Leopard.
As we have seen from the recent G4 transplants - clock for clock they're scoring as high as G5s...but again, it's not all about benchmarks.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
The quote was "OS X is more optimized for the G4" - no mention of Leopard.
As we have seen from the recent G4 transplants - clock for clock they're scoring as high as G5s...but again, it's not all about benchmarks.
thats because the G5 was the Pentium 4 of the PowerPC world (a CPU with a faster bus/memory subsystem of its predecessor but with worse IPC) with the G4 (esp the 7448) being clock for clock faster then the G5,
the G4 was however majorly bottlenecked by its front side bus. (the MaxBus was fine for 1999 by but by 2003-2006 was very slow)
this does not say whether or not OS X is more or less for a specific PowerPC architecture.
its also worth mentioning that as a Linux machine a Typical MDD would be quite a bad choice as most MDDs shipped with Radeon 9000 Pro GPUs which for some reason do not play nice with linux at all so unless you can swap the GPU out your gonna be in for a world of pain
Last edited:
I have a LOT of G4 upgrades...I've made something of a hobby of collecting them, and plan to have one of my iMacs 7448ed once it becomes viable...
I don't think it's a stretch to say that I may have more commercial G4 upgrade cards than anyone else in this forum.
The dual 1.42 MDD is the standard against which I measure other G4s, and my dual 1.8 7447A can just barely trade blows with a dual 1.42 MDD. My 2ghz 7448 beats the single thread performance of a dual 1.42, but not multi-thread.
None of them, however, beat my dual core 2.0ghz G5, whether in Tiger or Leopard.
There again, the statement was "OS X is better optimized for a G4 than a G5." Unless I'm reading a different article than the one that was linked to support that statement, it only compares PPCs as a whole to Intel, not G4s to G5s.
I really don't see the point of this bickering. The article clearly illustrated Tiger is slightly faster than Leopard on a G5 (which most users here testify anyway), the recent CPU swaps are indicating a clock for clock parity for the G4 and Leopard was developed post X86...so it's not too much of a stretch to conclude OSX (Tiger) was at it's most efficient on a G4 - the G5s obviously had much more brute force at their disposal but we've never seen an Apple built G4 system with identical specs to compare and contrast.
As an aside, moving from Panther to Tiger required a 30% faster G3, the move from Tiger to Leopard required a 290% faster G4.
Actually, that's NOT true. The 2ghz 7448 iMacs are eating at the heals of a dual 1.42 MDD, something that's impressive, but even moderate spec G5s outdo them.
The fastest G4 has a 167mhz FSB-that's holding it back.
And my "bickering" is the fact that we have nothing to back up the statement made about the OS X(whether Tiger or Leopard) being better optimized for G4s than G5s-it's purely speculation and my real world experience disagrees with it.
Not trying to claim anything, it's just the general consensus I've gotten around here.
It's also certainly felt that way every time I use a G4 in comparison to a G5.
And let's be real here, the G5 was only on sale for three years. The G4 had seven. And given all the power, improvement, and clear superiority the G5 had over the G4, it never got an OS the G4 couldn't run. When Leopard dropped, G3s couldn't run it, thus the same thing should have happened with the next release. The PowerPC could have been more gradually dropped than it was, which is why many people here think the G5 should have gotten Snow Leopard, which would have been a very logical move had Apple decided to go that route.
Last edited:
I guess I must be imagining things, then, when I quite literally transplant an OS X install between a high spec G4 and a G5 then do the same tasks and find the G5 considerably faster.
Carry on.
Carry on.
wait hold up here
Someone said "OS X is better optmised for a G4 then a G5"
your suddenly arguing other points like Leopard on PPC vs intel and now Tiger vs Leopard which are not related to the initial point you backed that we take issue too,
you have not once addressed your backing up of the claim that OS X is better optimised for a G4 then a G5.
I have if you read the posts?
[doublepost=1532707899][/doublepost]
The latest 2Ghz G4 transplants are benchmarking as high as 2Ghz G5 iMacs.
Nonsense! Show me your high end G4 with FSB and fast RAM on a par with your matched G5?
this is your only post where you adress the OS X being more optimised for the G4 then the G5
you use the recent G4 upgrades that have been happening here as an example
what you miss is that they score as high as they do
because the G4 IS THAT FAST
not because OS X is suddenly more optimised for the G4 then a G5a G4 7448 clock for clock taking away any bus limitations IS Faster then a G5 regardless of the OS being used, however the G4s have a cripplingly slow bus compared to the G5 which have a much faster bus and as such especially in SMP applications and memory intensive applications the G5 will spank the G4
This is a pointless argument to make because you CAN'T match the FSB between the G4 and the G5.
None the less, doing the same tasks WITH THE SAME OS X basic install(but reinstalled as an archive/install when switching architectures) I can do the same things faster on a dual core 2.0ghz G5 than I can on ANY G4...dual 1.42 MDD, dual 1.8ghz 7447A, or single 2.0ghz 7448.
You're caught up on this "clock for clock" thing, but the fact is that there isn't a G4 in existence that CAN match FSB or memory amounts in a G5.
It's still not changing the fact that there's been no evidence to back up OS X(unqualified as to version) is better optimized for a G4 than a G5. That might be true with Jaguar, but then Jaguar runs like crap on everything(and 10.2.8 on a G5 is pretty darn fast).
Ok...I'll concede I have zero proof - not that there can be because there's no G4 system with identical specs to any G5 but even so, I believe OSX (Tiger) was at it's zenith on the G4.
if you want to see Tiger at its Zenith
try Tiger on a 8 Core Mac Pro booting from a SSD
talk about greased lightening
it booted to a usable desktop in under 15 secondsand was Stupidly quick navigating around
another fun one is the 10.4.1 DTK build in a VM on a modern machine, also stupidly quick there
if you want to see Tiger at its Zenith
try Tiger on a 8 Core Mac Pro booting from a SSD
talk about greased lightening
Even if you nuke the GPU kexts and just run on the frame buffer
It's also useless for anything productive, but it's fast.
Also, try Snow Leopard on a 12 core Mac Pro booting from a PCIe SSD
And there you have it! Exactly why the G5 was used: a completely new bus design for better, faster FSB! Which in turn also helps multi-processor performance! It's almost as if it makes sense Apple moved to the G5 with the desktops
Just a question…
Is it relevant how much faster one machine is versus another, or what version of OS X is "faster" or better optimized?
I admitted at one point that Tiger is faster than Leopard. Yet I use Leopard on all my Macs (except those that cannot run it). Why?
Because what is more important to me is using the Mac. All of you are aware of my issues with Tiger. Speed does me no good if Finder is always unstable in a networked PC/Mac environment.
So, maybe this claim or that claim is right or wrong, depending on your viewpoint. But there are use cases for both operating systems and whether you believe one way or the other you're going to use whatever version of OS X is best for your particular situation and use case.
Everything else is just trying to squeeze extra blood out of the PowerPC rock.
Is it relevant how much faster one machine is versus another, or what version of OS X is "faster" or better optimized?
I admitted at one point that Tiger is faster than Leopard. Yet I use Leopard on all my Macs (except those that cannot run it). Why?
Because what is more important to me is using the Mac. All of you are aware of my issues with Tiger. Speed does me no good if Finder is always unstable in a networked PC/Mac environment.
So, maybe this claim or that claim is right or wrong, depending on your viewpoint. But there are use cases for both operating systems and whether you believe one way or the other you're going to use whatever version of OS X is best for your particular situation and use case.
Everything else is just trying to squeeze extra blood out of the PowerPC rock.
I agree totally...I prefer Leopard on suitable machines even though I know it's slightly slower - the advantages outweigh that.
That doesn't stop me from feeling that the G5 would have been a far better system if Apple hadn't jumped ship and gave it the period of development the G4 had.
Agree tenfold.
...Which is why I've been so persistent with PowerPC Linux. The way I see it, it's the support Apple never gave. It's an experiment worth investing in, because let's face it, the G5 only has two real OS X choices, maybe one, two supported web browsers and little else for everything in between, as far as support goes.
Take my posts for what you will, but that's my drive/vision.
I only briefly toyed with 64bit Lubuntu on my Dual 2.3 and the results were impressive - especially in video playback and I've no doubt that Linux picked up the ball and took 64bit computing further than Apple did on the G5 - any doubters should check Luigi Burdo's Youtube channel.
However, like the Tiger/Leopard choice, my direction was influenced by facility not performance - I need the software that OSX has because there is no analogue in Linux.
And here we have what is probably most people's #1 problem with the OS...
If that issue was 100% solved, or rather if the industry adopted the alternatives, people wouldn't have to wrangle with common Windows or OS X frustrations, support / development would explode (thanks to higher numbers), application choice and quality would shoot up (thanks to higher numbers), more paid development positions would open up (thanks to higher numbers), and even more options in distributions could be created (thanks to higher numbers).
I believe the industry / people are very slowly moving in that general direction. Especially when considering Windows 10 is apparently the "last" version of Windows, an increasing amount of people are growing tired of what Apple is doing with OS X, and the growing importance of the browser / reliance on the Internet alone, the 2020's could be a period of change in the computer space.
Essentially, all we can really do is wait and see.
Last edited:
This is one of my things also-my non-hobby PPC Macs have specific uses.
If I can't get software like Nikon Scan, Epson Scan, or Vuescan on there along with Photoshop it's of little use to me.
BTW, Nikon Scan is one of the reasons why I used a dual 2.7 for a long time even though I have a Quad on hand. The dual 2.7 is the fastest single core PPC Mac, and it makes a difference for a CPU-heavy single threaded program. My Coolscan 8000 is on lay-a-way, and if I hadn't completely switched over to the Mac Pro for these duties(which can blast through this stuff faster than I could have imagined even under Rosetta) it would have been a REALLY big deal. 4000dpi on a 1"x1.5" piece of film is a lot less processor intensive than on a 2 1/4x 2 1/4 or larger(realistically I think Hasselblads are 56mm x 56mm, and an RB67 is 57mmx70mm or so).
Of course, the Epson really grinds things to a halt when I do a 4x5 at 6200 dpi...and of course doing Digital ICE is adds a ton of processing time.
BTW, here's one piece of Linux software that I need some for offline data processing that-thank goodness-is now OS X native.
If you need to interface with hardware(and we're talking hardware that starts at ~$400K and goes up) you still should be running CentOS at a minimum and preferably RHEL.
http://openvnmrj.org/
It could happen...though the entire face of computing might have changed by then.
As omnipresent as Apple are now, when I switched to OSX in 2002, a lot of what I tried to do on my G4 iMac was met with "PC only not for Mac" and look how the times have changed.
Just to throw in a quick late-to-the-party observation of my own;
A) OS X on any G5 I have owned has outperformed OS X on any G4 I have owned.
B) OS X was not optimized for 64-bitness on G5 systems.
This is not to be confused with OS X being *more* optimized for G4 than G5. It's simply a case of the G5's full potential not being tapped by OS X.
A) OS X on any G5 I have owned has outperformed OS X on any G4 I have owned.
B) OS X was not optimized for 64-bitness on G5 systems.
This is not to be confused with OS X being *more* optimized for G4 than G5. It's simply a case of the G5's full potential not being tapped by OS X.