PDA

View Full Version : Worth Upgrading Tiger to Leopard on a PowerMac G5?




fernande-mac
Aug 31, 2009, 09:14 PM
My system is a PowerMac G5 PPC Dual 1.8 GHz, 6 GB RAM, ATI Radeon X800 XT, Dual 160GB HD RAID, 23" Cinema Display.

I am currently running Tiger 10.4.11 and my most commonly used applications are:
- Quicken 2007
- World Of Warcraft
- Microsoft Office 2004
- Vuze (BitTorrent)
- iLife '06
- Adobe CS2

I don't have a "need" to upgrade to Leopard, but I would like to know if there is any benefit in doing so.

The two benefits I have been able to find are:
- Better OpenGL support (which improves WoW gaming experience)
- Support for Java 1.6 (which helps Java development and potentially some browsers)

The main disadvantages include upgrading some applications (at least iLife '09, and perhaps Microsoft Office 2008 and Adobe CS3), and some potential decrease in performance.

Are there any benefits that people can think of? Or should I just stay with Tiger?

Thanks!



JRob65a6
Aug 31, 2009, 09:22 PM
I have a newr MacBook Pro and I switched and I must say I see a big difference in speed. I'm not sure about the older system but I would think you would notice a difference. Office is about the same but Photoshop, Fireworks, Dreamweaver, iwork, and iLife seem to be a lot faster.

noodle654
Aug 31, 2009, 09:22 PM
My system is a PowerMac G5 PPC Dual 1.8 GHz, 6 GB RAM, ATI Radeon X800 XT, Dual 160GB HD RAID, 23" Cinema Display.

I am currently running Tiger 10.4.11 and my most commonly used applications are:
- Quicken 2007
- World Of Warcraft
- Microsoft Office 2004
- Vuze (BitTorrent)
- iLife '06
- Adobe CS2

I don't have a "need" to upgrade to Leopard, but I would like to know if there is any benefit in doing so.

The two benefits I have been able to find are:
- Better OpenGL support (which improves WoW gaming experience)
- Support for Java 1.6 (which helps Java development and potentially some browsers)

The main disadvantages include upgrading some applications (at least iLife '09, and perhaps Microsoft Office 2008 and Adobe CS3), and some potential decrease in performance.

Are there any benefits that people can think of? Or should I just stay with Tiger?

Thanks!

I would totally move over to Leopard. I think you would see a nice increase in performance. If for some reason your not happy, go back to Tiger.

JRob65a6
Aug 31, 2009, 09:23 PM
Also sleep, shutdown, and startup are a lot faster also.

gugucom
Aug 31, 2009, 10:58 PM
Disk utility is far superior and Time Machine is a nice add on. My G5s were allways great on Leopard. Tiger is too old fashioned for me.

fernande-mac
Sep 1, 2009, 12:13 AM
Thanks for the prompt responses.

So, you actually noticed an increase in performance? I had heard the opposite, so it is nice to know.

Regarding the applications, are you saying that the "legacy" versions (e.g., MS Office 2004, Adobe CS2) ran faster after installing Leopard? Or that the new versions did (e.g., MS Office 2008, Adobe CS3, iLife '09)?

Thanks!

Dr.Pants
Sep 1, 2009, 12:52 AM
I've only used Leopard on my machine, and it works like a charm... I can't say that I've compared the two. OP, if you are worred about legacy applications (that won't work with Leopard but you need them), make a new partition toward the bottom of your HD, clone your current volume, and then install Leopard.

Or at least, my advice on the matter.

Even though the OS may have more overhead, I would imagine it allows for programs to run lighter... Or at least, my reasoning. I could be really :confused:

Eric S.
Sep 1, 2009, 01:07 AM
Just be aware that if you need Classic for anything, it's not supported on Leopard.

wpc33
Sep 1, 2009, 01:07 AM
In my limited experience, Tiger is less demanding on any system, however, I love me some Leopard, and it thankfully runs really damn well on my 1.8 dual G5.
My previous G5, a single 1.8 with a weak FSB of 667MHz, but with a 7800GS(best AGP) and 4GB RAM, it still choked constantly, CPU's throttled. I may had been better off running Tiger once I began to detest such a decent machine.

Try it out!

fernande-mac
Sep 1, 2009, 08:04 AM
Thanks for your helpful replies.

wpc33, my main concern was whether my configuration was able to handle the performance demands of Leopard. You seem to have answered that question.

Eric, I don't use Classic. So, I am OK on that side.

Dr.Pants, as far as "legacy" applications, I am not aware of anything that I use nowadays that does not have a Leopard-compatible version. So, I do not see any reason to keep a Tiger partition around except for backup during the transition.

My concern is whether I need to spend some additional money to get newer versions of my existing applications or if I can survive with "glitchy" behavior of the existing versions. Especially, Microsoft Office 2004, iLife '06, and Adobe CS2. I have found contradictory information about how well these applications behave under Leopard.

Thanks!

300D
Sep 1, 2009, 02:40 PM
All G5's should use Leopard. The slower and non-dual G4s are the ones to avoid it.

davidlv
Sep 1, 2009, 05:49 PM
Thanks for your helpful replies.

My concern is whether I need to spend some additional money to get newer versions of my existing applications or if I can survive with "glitchy" behavior of the existing versions. Especially, Microsoft Office 2004, iLife '06, and Adobe CS2. I have found contradictory information about how well these applications behave under Leopard.

Thanks!

On my Power Mac G5 2.0GHz, MS Office 2004, Word and Excel at least, are the same as always, performance is OK, but the applications suffer from the same problems they have always had. Using Leopard will not cause any additional problems, at least in my experience, using Word everyday in a Work situation. Can't say much about Powerpoint or the rest as I don't use them. iLife '06 and CS2 - no idea, sorry.

I would just try it, and decide for yourself. (Backup your Tiger installation by cloning to a USB or Firewire drive first) :cool:

fernande-mac
Sep 1, 2009, 06:22 PM
This may be a side question, but it has been recommended to me to either create a clone of the disk with the Tiger installation, or a disk image.

I have about 166GB worth of data and my external HD is 186GB (200GB minus overhead).

Is there any advantage of having direct access to the clone disk vs. mounting a disk image that you open when needed?

I have the impression that a disk image will use less space, but I am not sure how much I would save considering that the amount of space available in the external disk is not that much.

Eric S.
Sep 1, 2009, 06:41 PM
All G5's should use Leopard. The slower and non-dual G4s are the ones to avoid it.

Leopard runs absolutely fine on my PM G4 with 1GHz CPU (Sonnet upgrade) and 1.3GB RAM. The only thing I'm unhappy about is the lack of Classic.

aibo
Sep 1, 2009, 07:02 PM
Leopard runs absolutely fine on my PM G4 with 1GHz CPU (Sonnet upgrade) and 1.3GB RAM. The only thing I'm unhappy about is the lack of Classic.

"Fine" is a relative term. Leopard runs like a turd on my 1.33GHz G4 with 1.5GB RAM, compared to how fast Tiger was.

Eric S.
Sep 1, 2009, 07:15 PM
"Fine" is a relative term. Leopard runs like a turd on my 1.33GHz G4 with 1.5GB RAM, compared to how fast Tiger was.

I guess "turd" is a relative term too. ;) It just depends on what applications one runs I suppose; for me the performance of Leopard is not noticeably different than that of Tiger. If it were really poor I would switch back, because the only compelling reason I find to run Leopard is Time Machine.

wpc33
Sep 1, 2009, 10:41 PM
For a tad of perspective on 10.4/5, I run Tiger on my PB(400MHz and 364MB RAM 64MB of VRAM) Terrifically.

Here are my Pismo's specs (http://www.everymac.com/systems/apple/powerbook_g3/stats/powerbook_g3_400_fw.html) . This thing oughta be a lame duck in today's world, but it runs Tiger better than my old single-1.8 PM G5 ran Leopard.

PS: It's still a slow notebook, but it handles itself very well, which was my point.

Dr.Pants
Sep 1, 2009, 11:16 PM
Is there any advantage of having direct access to the clone disk vs. mounting a disk image that you open when needed?

Well, I have a .dmg of Leopard (backup) that runs at 6.22 GB, wheras the install DVD is 7.03 GB used; so I would imagine there is compression somewhere (I could also be completely whacked ;))

Personally, I clone my drives so that I can boot off of them if my main disc decides to die, which idk if one can do that with an image. They could expand the image, but that takes additional time, IMO.

fernande-mac
Sep 2, 2009, 01:02 AM
Dr.Pants, good point about the ability to boot from the drive directly.

This makes me wonder, though. I was planning to use that drive to be my Time Machine backup after the installation and migration of old data.

If the machines dies, will the Time Machine backup help you boot the system? Or can it be used only to recover the HD content after you are able to restart the system (e.g., new HD, reinstall Leopard, etc.)?

Is it better to have both a clone of the HD for booting purposes _and_ the Time Machine setup for individual file/folder recovery over time?

Dr.Pants
Sep 2, 2009, 12:33 PM
Time machine is only backup, and thus one would have to get a new hard disc - it is nice, however, that Apple decided to put several tools on their install DVD; one can bypass the installer and format the new drive to HFS+ and then Restore from Time Machine.

However, I mainly keep a Time Machine drive around so I can access old data if I have to; I clone drives just because I find it simpler and faster. I guess one could say Time Machine is backup, the Clone is merely redundant ;)

fernande-mac
Sep 3, 2009, 12:32 AM
That's what I suspected. I guess I should look into another external hard disk. :-)

Dr.Pants
Sep 3, 2009, 12:47 AM
That's what I suspected. I guess I should look into another external hard disk. :-)

Try not to use USB, and instead opt for FW400 or FW800! :o I learned this out the hard way... Nothing like four hours for the initial time machine backup.

ipodphonepad
Nov 12, 2010, 07:21 AM
Can i install leopard on my PowerBook G4 8-something mhz with 364 mb ram?

d88co88
Nov 12, 2010, 07:29 AM
Can i install leopard on my PowerBook G4 8-something mhz with 364 mb ram?

It really does matter what the exact speed of your 8-something PowerBook G4 is.

http://support.apple.com/kb/HT3759

FROM APPLE WEBSITE

Mac OS X v10.5 Leopard requires:

A Mac computer with an Intel, PowerPC G5, or Power PC G4 (867 MHz or faster) processor
512 MB memory or more
A DVD drive for installation
9 GB of available disk space or more
Some features require a compatible Internet service provider, fees may apply.
Some features require Apple's MobileMe service; fees apply.

XaPHER
Nov 12, 2010, 09:39 AM
there's some way to install leopard even on an under 500 mhz g3, but only a g4 will correctly boot(i arleady manged to install it on a clamshell)
but you'll need more ram

XaPHER
Nov 12, 2010, 09:53 AM
1

ipodphonepad
Nov 12, 2010, 05:06 PM
It really does matter what the exact speed of your 8-something PowerBook G4 is.

http://support.apple.com/kb/HT3759

It is supported i know that. the ram isn't enough, but can i install something so that it'll work?:apple::apple::apple::apple:

MacHamster68
Nov 12, 2010, 07:07 PM
if you dont have enough ram honestly dont bother to upgrade your powerbook g4 867 mhz titanium to leopard , leopard needs at least 512 and that is the absolute minimum ram to be usable ..sort of !!! your powerbook takes a max of 1 gb so its time to upgrade even if you stick with tiger because tiger runs with 256mb ram but its already for tiger a form of torture , you will see a huge improvement in speed with more ram


for the OP the G5 should run leopard , but as mentioned now i would not run it with less then 2 gb ram as minimum even on a G5 as it felt slow on my iMac G5 with 1.5 gb ram compared to tiger which did really fly on the G5 iMac