Hi,
I have a Powermac G4 dual 800Mhz, 1.5GB ram, 160GB hard drive and USB 2. Would leopard run better or tiger?
Thanks,
John.
I have a Powermac G4 dual 800Mhz, 1.5GB ram, 160GB hard drive and USB 2. Would leopard run better or tiger?
Thanks,
John.
This is a question no one can really answer but you. Everyone has their own personal perception of performance.
I personally prefer Leopard to Tiger even though Leo generally runs a tad slower on the same PowerPC hardware. I can only speak for myself though. Your hardware is fast enough to run 10.5 decently IMO and you have enough RAM to help out with performance. You will need to use Leopard Assist or whatever it's called to get it on a sub-867MHz.
In 2011 Tiger is rather primitive in many many ways compared to 10.5. Leopard is very close to 10.6 security and feature wise. For that reason alone without even considering performance is enough for me.
As far as telling you what OS is best for you on that hardware I really can't. All I can do is offer advice. Questions like this open up your OS fate to the possible ignorance/oversight and bias of others that could easily steer you in the wrong way.
Thankyou very much!
Is there a way to trick the computer to think it has an intel so snow leopard and lion would work?
Thanks,
John.
Thankyou very much!
Is there a way to trick the computer to think it has an intel so snow leopard and lion would work?
Thanks,
John.
On my single 867, Leopard is slightly slower, but not greatly so. That said, the extra features (Time Machine, Spaces, etc) easily justify the slight speed drop. Furthermore, it's much easier to get current or nearly current versions of applications for Leopard than Tiger (in large part due to the Leopard/Snow Leopard APIs that don't exist in Tiger, but also just because any developer still thinking PPC is most likely to just worry about the newest version...).
Your machine is plenty quick enough to run Leopard nicely, especially given that you've maxed out the RAM. The one downside to Leopard is that when you don't have a Core Image capable graphics card (unlikely, given that the only one that works in your machine is the aftermarket Radeon 9800), it software-renders Core Image effects (using CPUs+system RAM) instead of ignoring them altogether as Tiger does. Frankly, I'm given to believe this is the main reason most older Mac users feel that Leopard is slower than Tiger--but the effect will be minimized for you, given your dual processors and (relatively) high amount of RAM.
Thanks zen state, for explaining that so clearly. I misunderstood what sysipus posted, when he wrote that Core Image was ignored by Tiger.
On my single 867, Leopard is slightly slower, but not greatly so. That said, the extra features (Time Machine, Spaces, etc) easily justify the slight speed drop. Furthermore, it's much easier to get current or nearly current versions of applications for Leopard than Tiger (in large part due to the Leopard/Snow Leopard APIs that don't exist in Tiger, but also just because any developer still thinking PPC is most likely to just worry about the newest version...).
Your machine is plenty quick enough to run Leopard nicely, especially given that you've maxed out the RAM. The one downside to Leopard is that when you don't have a Core Image capable graphics card (unlikely, given that the only one that works in your machine is the aftermarket Radeon 9800), it software-renders Core Image effects (using CPUs+system RAM) instead of ignoring them altogether as Tiger does. Frankly, I'm given to believe this is the main reason most older Mac users feel that Leopard is slower than Tiger--but the effect will be minimized for you, given your dual processors and (relatively) high amount of RAM.