PDA

View Full Version : Downsides of using Panther or Tiger on a powerbook




zoran
Sep 28, 2012, 01:08 PM
I have a Powerbook G4 1.67 GHz (the oldest of the bunch and fastest) and i want to speed it up using an older OSX, so i was thinking of installing something close to what it came with, either Panther or Tiger, i think those two were the closest if not the ones. But really what will i loose if put Panther or Tiger related to now that its using Leopard?



eyoungren
Sep 28, 2012, 01:37 PM
Don't know which model of 1.67 you have. 15" or 17", but the earliest you could run would be Panther 10.3.7. That's what those models came with.

BTW, your PowerBook is not the oldest. The 1.67's were the last in the aluminum series and introduced in 2006. The PowerBook I am typing this on right now is older than that by three years. 1.0Ghz 17" introduced in 2003.

If you include the Titaniums then the oldest would be the TiBook/400, introduced in January 2001.

Then there are the Powerbooks before that.

Maybe you meant newest?

As to what you'd miss.

WPA security on WiFi. WPA2 is rapidly starting to become the minimum type of secure connection. Most secure networks now don't use WEP which would be the max you could get with Panther. So, you'd have an Airport Extreme card, but would be unable to connect to most Wifi hotspots.

Access to most late versions of programs. Development of apps for Leopard alone ceased quite a while back. Very few developers include Panther anymore. Let's take Firefox for example. The highest you could go would be Firefox 2 as Firefox 3 requires Tiger. You won't be able to run TenFourFox on Panther because it also requires Tiger.

That's just off the top of my head.

zoran
Sep 28, 2012, 01:49 PM
Yup your right i meant newest.
To be frank im not really interested in using this Powerbook for apps, just for internet.
Nor am i really interested in wifi as i prefer internet via Ethernet.
All i need is Skype, a browser and Keynote to make a few presentations, thats about all the work this Powerbook is gonna be doing!

eyoungren
Sep 28, 2012, 02:03 PM
Well, I don't know much about Keynote, but you should be ok with Skype. You'll want a firewire webcam with Skype (if you do video calling) or a USB webcam that works efficiently.

I have a USB webcam that I got before my external iSight and it drove my 1.67Ghz Mac to 100%CPU just with Skype running. Once I got the iSight everything was fine.

You'll be limited to older versions of browsers. I think Panther will limit you to Safari 2. Be aware that a lot of sites you may visit utilitize features that only later browser versions can support. You may or may not use Facebook, but I'll cite it as an example. All the javascript eye candy there goes away with older browsers. The problem with that is that FB uses that eye candy to allow you to post and upload. So, without it you're limited.

I'm not trying to convince you to choose any particular OS, just informing you of what you may run into.

California
Sep 28, 2012, 02:16 PM
Yup your right i meant newest.
To be frank im not really interested in using this Powerbook for apps, just for internet.
Nor am i really interested in wifi as i prefer internet via Ethernet.
All i need is Skype, a browser and Keynote to make a few presentations, thats about all the work this Powerbook is gonna be doing!

Depending on which 1.67ghz Powerbook you have -- the early 2005 or the late 2005 -- I'm not sure in either case you can run Panther. Tiger came out in 2005 and was stock on the final version 1.67ghz that took DDR2 ram with the High Resolution screen and Dual layer superdrive.

The previous 1.67 took DDR ram and had a lesser superdrive and standard screen. I am not sure it shipped with panther either -- you may not be able to run it on either of the 1.67 Powerbooks.

I own the final revision 1.67ghz and I see no reason to run Tiger on it. Leopard is great.

zoran
Sep 28, 2012, 02:40 PM
I own the final revision 1.67ghz and I see no reason to run Tiger on it. Leopard is great.
i have a feeling but im not certain, that Leopard might be be heavier than Tiger, am i right?

ihuman:D
Sep 28, 2012, 02:56 PM
I have a Powerbook G4 1.67 GHz (the oldest of the bunch and fastest) and i want to speed it up using an older OSX, so i was thinking of installing something close to what it came with, either Panther or Tiger, i think those two were the closest if not the ones. But really what will i loose if put Panther or Tiger related to now that its using Leopard?

No, it's one of (if not) the newest of the PBs.

I'd run Leopard if I were you. The machines still going to be fast on it.

zoran
Sep 28, 2012, 02:57 PM
No, it's one of (if not) the newest of the PBs.
yes i know i did a mistake :D

tom vilsack
Sep 28, 2012, 03:55 PM
-forget panther for simple web browser choice (safari,camino,icab,opera all to old errors ect ,won't run ten4,)
-this leaves you with either tiger or leopard... i used to have a older pb 12" 1.33 i installed tiger and leopard then ran geekbench on both,and leopard came out with slightly higher score.

bottom line...use leopard.

California
Sep 28, 2012, 04:02 PM
i have a feeling but im not certain, that Leopard might be be heavier than Tiger, am i right?

Leopard runs better than Tiger in my PPC experience. The reason Leopard is fat is because it carries intel Leopard code, too.

For example, you can boot a Leopard Intel Machine like an early 2009 Mac Mini off a target disked Powerbook G4 running Leopard. That was my favorite set up for a long while, I could use my PPC laptop with my Intel Mac.

orestes1984
Sep 28, 2012, 05:41 PM
Your better off running Leopard and then using Xslimmer. Either way if you install Leopard or Tiger its going to have intel binaries.

Davy.Shalom
Sep 28, 2012, 09:22 PM
Max out the RAM and put Leopard on it. I have Leopard on my 12" 1.33, and it runs pretty well. Boot times are horrifically slow, but applications all start up quickly and work well. The only application that lags is safari...

Keynote works well on Leopard as well. I'm using 09 right now.

justperry
Sep 29, 2012, 04:02 AM
Your better off running Leopard and then using Xslimmer. Either way if you install Leopard or Tiger its going to have intel binaries.

Xslimmer is not free and you do NOT need it, a simple terminal command will make it PPC only, bit more work but does the job.

I already told this in another thread started by Zoran but keeps asking about it.

I have the exact same powerbook, Leopard runs just fine.
Also cleaned My whole system of non PPC code and got rid of many other non needed stuff.
I recommend the sticky FAQ in the PPC section.

zoran
Sep 29, 2012, 06:06 AM
Xslimmer is not free and you do NOT need it, a simple terminal command will make it PPC only, bit more work but does the job.

I already told this in another thread started by Zoran but keeps asking about it.

I have the exact same powerbook, Leopard runs just fine.
Also cleaned My whole system of non PPC code and got rid of many other non needed stuff.
I recommend the sticky FAQ in the PPC section.
I didn't know you have the same PBook as i do. How much memory is there on it, how much space does your HD have?

justperry
Sep 29, 2012, 10:32 AM
I didn't know you have the same PBook as i do. How much memory is there on it, how much space does your HD have?

Only 1 GB because the lower memory slot does not work, this is a known "defect" of these powerbooks, I say "defect" because actually it is not really one, if only Apple released a firmware update for it but never did for obvious reasons.
Just google Powerbook lower slot and read about it.
There is actually a workaround for it but some are lucky and some not, not me.

80 GB Harddisc, that's enough for what I do, have an external for all the music, photo's and backup.
Buying the biggest PATA available disc won't give me enough, have about 500 GB and the biggest PATA is 320 GB.

zoran
Sep 29, 2012, 10:34 AM
Only 1 GB because the lower memory slot does not work, this is a known "defect" of these powerbooks, I say "defect" because actually it is not really one, if only Apple released a firmware update for it but never did for obvious reasons.
Just google Powerbook lower slot and read about it.
There is actually a workaround for it but some are lucky and some not, not me.

80 GB Harddisc, that's enough for what I do, have an external for all the music, photo's and backup.
Buying the biggest PATA available disc won't give me enough, have about 500 GB and the biggest PATA is 320 GB.
perhaps an SSD drive could speed things up?

justperry
Sep 29, 2012, 11:33 PM
perhaps an SSD drive could speed things up?

Too expensive, there aren't that many PATA SSD's, not only that, it's limited to ATA 100 speeds so it won't make that much of a difference.

Spending $100 on a machine that is 7 years old and going back to 64 GB just won't make me happy.
Not only that, I am pretty sure they are not available where I am and ordering online makes it even more expensive.
Better would be to get a secondhand MacbookPro from 2006-2008 or so, cost more yes but would also be faster, more compatible with current software.
Maybe a low capacity PCMCIA SSD would work, but I don't even know if they exist and would probably still not make that much of a difference.
Just did a quick search, they seem to exist but finding a place where they sell them is hard.
If for instance there would be a 8-16-or even 32GB available at a reasonable price at higher speeds than the build in HD I would consider one and then move the VM to the PCMCIA.

Anyone has suggestions?

BTW, I tried tricking My powerbook into recognizing 1.5 GB of memory by mapping out the second lower memory slot in Open Firmware, but as soon as the system tries to access the second RAM the system crashes, I think the problem here is that the memory is mapped but the speed is unknown to the system.
If I go into System Profiler it sees the extra 512 MB RAM module but no mention of it's speed.

Here's the site where I found that trick:

Mapping lower slot memory (http://hints.macworld.com/article.php?story=20080226020954481)

666sheep
Sep 30, 2012, 07:07 AM
Too expensive, there aren't that many PATA SSD's, not only that, it's limited to ATA 100 speeds so it won't make that much of a difference.


Theorey isn't everything, especially incomplete one. ATA 100 limit has nothing to do with benefits of SSD. IOPS and almost zero-ish acces time do matter a lot more than maximum speed of copying files.
Average PATA SSD even in Clamshell with its ATA-2 bus will outperform any mechanical drive which you'll be able to fit in there.
Please first try yourself (or at least do some good research) then make an opinion, doing in reverse way makes your opinion worthless.
There's quite number of PATA SSDs on the market, obviously not as much as SATA ones, but one still have some choice.

justperry
Sep 30, 2012, 08:41 AM
Theorey isn't everything, especially incomplete one. ATA 100 limit has nothing to do with benefits of SSD. IOPS and almost zero-ish acces time do matter a lot more than maximum speed of copying files.
Average PATA SSD even in Clamshell with its ATA-2 bus will outperform any mechanical drive which you'll be able to fit in there.
Please first try yourself (or at least do some good research) then make an opinion, doing in reverse way makes your opinion worthless.
There's quite number of PATA SSDs on the market, obviously not as much as SATA ones, but one still have some choice.

Maybe time for you to update your reading skills;)

Meaning is: It is too expensive for what I get in return.

FYI you conveniently left out this:
Spending $100 on a machine that is 7 years old and going back to 64 GB just won't make me happy.

666sheep
Sep 30, 2012, 08:55 AM
Maybe time for you to update your reading skills;)

Meaning is: It is too expensive for what I get in return.

FYI you left out this:
Spending $100 on a machine that is 7 years old and going back to 64 GB just won't make me happy.

I got that, but how you can really know without experiencing it? Numbers aren't everything. Only things that SSD does not speed up res processing and memory performance. If you have SATA SSD and FW800 enclosure by the hand, you can test it yourself without buying PATA one.
It will make a great difference even via FW800.
If you plan on using this computer for a while longer, investment will be worth it. I have one in Clamshell and I want to buy next ones for PB and Cube. And I can live with 64GB easily. ;)

orestes1984
Sep 30, 2012, 09:21 AM
Yup, you will get better performance via firewire 800 than you will the internal drive bay and these machines will boot off firewire. You can also easily get a Firewire to SATAII caddy. Even if it doesn't make a difference you just put the disk in a newer machine.

justperry
Sep 30, 2012, 09:41 AM
I got that, but how you can really know without experiencing it? Numbers aren't everything. Only things that SSD does not speed up res processing and memory performance. If you have SATA SSD and FW800 enclosure by the hand, you can test it yourself without buying PATA one.
It will make a great difference even via FW800.
If you plan on using this computer for a while longer, investment will be worth it. I have one in Clamshell and I want to buy next ones for PB and Cube. And I can live with 64GB easily. ;)

Yup, you will get better performance via firewire 800 than you will the internal drive bay and these machines will boot off firewire. You can also easily get a Firewire to SATAII caddy. Even if it doesn't make a difference you just put the disk in a newer machine.

Why didn't I think of that:o:o:o

I DO have an external case, capable of eSata-firewire 400 and 800 and USB, might give that a try, but then I need to buy another one for the backup disc which is in that enclosure now.

Cheers Guys

zoran
Sep 30, 2012, 09:44 AM
Yup, you will get better performance via firewire 800 than you will the internal drive bay and these machines will boot off firewire. You can also easily get a Firewire to SATAII caddy. Even if it doesn't make a difference you just put the disk in a newer machine.
i didn't get the "Firewire to SATAII caddy" thing :D

666sheep
Sep 30, 2012, 09:47 AM
I DO have an external case, capable of eSata-firewire 400 and 800 and USB

Do not strip your OS from G5 code and you will be able to run multiple PowerPC computers off this drive.

justperry
Sep 30, 2012, 10:02 AM
Do not strip your OS from G5 code and you will be able to run multiple PowerPC computers off this drive.

Too late:eek:, I already did, whole my system is PPC only.

But, that's not a problem, I don't own a G5 and probably never will, only have laptops, or Apple comes out with the infamous Powerbook G5:D

Edit: Now that I think of it, several months ago I got a 2.5" disc in that 3.5" enclosure and I got strange behavior, clicking and think it didn't start up, but this was a toshiba disc which in it's own enclosure needs an Y USB cable, it draws too much current, even on a single USB cable connected to an USB 1 Ampere hub it won't start up normally.
Sata=Sata is what I believe even if it's a 2.5" or 3.5", is this statement true?

dbrewer80221
Sep 30, 2012, 11:07 AM
So I'm rocking the 15 inch Powerbook G4, early 2005 (1.67 GHz like yours, 1 GB of RAM, 80 GB HD). And I did some real world testing. Geekbench can only tell you so much.

These are fresh installs, no third party apps, OS fully patched and updated via Software Update

Boot up time with 10.4 - 2:31
Boot up time with 10.5 - 1:42

Start Safari with 10.4 - :10
Start Safari with 10.5 - :07

Copy 8 GB file to USB with 10.4 - 19 minutes
Copy 8 GB file to USB with 10.5 - 14 minutes


I think you see my point :) Go with Leopard on that machine - It runs beautifully. You'll be kicking yourself if you don't.

justperry
Sep 30, 2012, 11:17 AM
So I'm rocking the 15 inch Powerbook G4, early 2005 (1.67 GHz like yours, 1 GB of RAM, 80 GB HD). And I did some real world testing. Geekbench can only tell you so much.

These are fresh installs, no third party apps, OS fully patched and updated via Software Update

Boot up time with 10.4 - 2:31
Boot up time with 10.5 - 1:42

Start Safari with 10.4 - :10
Start Safari with 10.5 - :07

Copy 8 GB file to USB with 10.4 - 19 minutes
Copy 8 GB file to USB with 10.5 - 14 minutes


I think you see my point :) Go with Leopard on that machine - It runs beautifully. You'll be kicking yourself if you don't.

That's what I said all along to the OP.

Nice comparison, shows clearly Leopard is substantially faster on this Powerbook.
And, if you remove all non essential Intel code it is even faster.
Boot up times can even be improved by removing non essential .kexts from extensions folder but thatís not an easy task.

dbrewer80221
Sep 30, 2012, 11:35 AM
That's what I said all along to the OP.

Nice comparison, shows clearly Leopard is substantially faster on this Powerbook.
And, if you remove all non essential Intel code it is even faster.
Boot up times can even be improved by removing non essential .kexts from extensions folder but thatís not an easy task.

He just happened to catch me at a good time. :) I just got this G4 off of eBay, and installed Tiger on it, then decided that I wanted Leopard on it instead.

orestes1984
Sep 30, 2012, 08:55 PM
i didn't get the "Firewire to SATAII caddy" thing :D

If you put an SSDin an external firewire enclosure it will be faster than the internal PATA drive.

Intell
Sep 30, 2012, 10:46 PM
If you put an SSDin an external firewire enclosure it will be faster than the internal PATA drive.

Not always. That Powerbook has a ATA/100 bus that maxes out at 100MB per second. With real world speeds hitting close to 90MB/s. FireWire 400 maxes out at about 40MB/s. Even my lowly 550Mhz Powerbook G4 would boot faster from a new internal drive on its ATA/66 bus then it would over a FireWire drive.

justperry
Oct 1, 2012, 12:22 AM
Not always. That Powerbook has a ATA/100 bus that maxes out at 100MB per second. With real world speeds hitting close to 90MB/s. FireWire 400 maxes out at about 40MB/s. Even my lowly 550Mhz Powerbook G4 would boot faster from a new internal drive on its ATA/66 bus then it would over a FireWire drive.

Except that that same Powerbook has Firewire 800;)

justperry
Oct 1, 2012, 01:45 AM
I just did a comparison.

External disk is a Carbon copy of internal disk, did this right before this test.

Boot Up from chime to login screen.

Internal = 1.18.5 minutes

External Firewire 800 Sata 2 disc inside = 1.16 minutes

Timed with iPhone, the difference is probably near to zero, can not time exactly.


Note: System is PPC code only and 105 kexts less in Extension Folder, not really relevant but it seems quite a bit faster than the above poster.(dbrewer80221)

Intell
Oct 1, 2012, 11:15 AM
Except that that same Powerbook has Firewire 800;)

Still slightly slower at 80MB/s with a higher latency.

dbrewer80221
Oct 3, 2012, 03:11 PM
Note: System is PPC code only and 105 kexts less in Extension Folder, not really relevant but it seems quite a bit faster than the above poster.(dbrewer80221)

I haven't removed the Intel code from my install. I just did another boot and got 1:33. I consider the system to be up when I have a dock, desktop, and everything in the menu bar.

zoran
Apr 18, 2013, 12:48 PM
Guys do you think that maybe Panther 10.3.7 that came with my PBook could do better on speed than either Tiger or Leopard?

Intell
Apr 18, 2013, 02:44 PM
Guys do you think that maybe Panther 10.3.7 that came with my PBook could do better on speed than either Tiger or Leopard?

Not really. Tiger is faster than Panther at nearly everything and it can run much more modern software than Panther.

PowerPCMacMan
Apr 18, 2013, 04:00 PM
Forget Panther.. and to an extent Tiger.. if your PowerBook is over 1Ghz and can handle it, get it up to Leopard..

zoran
Apr 18, 2013, 04:03 PM
Forget Panther.. and to an extent Tiger.. if your PowerBook is over 1Ghz and can handle it, get it up to Leopard..
it has very little memory, i think its only 512mb and i cannot afford getting more, thats why should i just use an OS that was used back then?

Intell
Apr 18, 2013, 04:06 PM
it has very little memory, i think its only 512mb and i cannot afford getting more, thats why should i just use an OS that was used back then?

Tiger is still a much better option for it. Even Leopard would run well for light monotasks on that machine.

rjcalifornia
Apr 18, 2013, 04:06 PM
it has very little memory, i think its only 512mb and i cannot afford getting more, thats why should i just use an OS that was used back then?

Get more RAM, install Leopard and enjoy youtube with Click To Plugin.

MisterKeeks
Apr 18, 2013, 04:43 PM
it has very little memory, i think its only 512mb and i cannot afford getting more, thats why should i just use an OS that was used back then?

Get more RAM, install Leopard and enjoy youtube with Click To Plugin.

:confused:

stroked
Apr 18, 2013, 04:56 PM
it has very little memory, i think its only 512mb and i cannot afford getting more, thats why should i just use an OS that was used back then?

Tiger will run very well with just 512 mb. That is what my intel iMac came with.

PowerPCMacMan
Apr 18, 2013, 10:33 PM
Stick with Tiger then... but when you get a chance.. up the memory and you can run Leopard.

Tiger will run very well with just 512 mb. That is what my intel iMac came with.

Lil Chillbil
Apr 18, 2013, 11:29 PM
Guys do you think that maybe Panther 10.3.7 that came with my PBook could do better on speed than either Tiger or Leopard?

Why can't you afford another 512mb stick, ram is soooooo cheap nowadays its only 12 cents a megabyte, compare that to $1 a megabyte a few years ago and then $5 a megabyte in 1993.