Frackin' impressive

[Imixmuan]

Italian gentleman installs 12.10 Lubuntu PPC on ibook G3 clamshell 466. Plays back some quite high quality video with mplayer, specially compiled as Lubuntu comes with mplayer with altivec, which won't work on a G3.

Magnifico!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNgWWU8v9bU

[jbarley]

Two and a half minutes from boot to a useable desktop

[Jessica Lares]

Not really.

I can pop a DVD into my clamshell and it'll play beautifully in OS 9 or Tiger. The machine itself doesn't have problem playing video, it's that the codecs and stuff aren't there to do it in the first place. It all has to do with code and conversions that work with the OS. How else was the first iPhone able to view every YouTube video with no Flash support?

And yes, that boot time is awful and will probably make the iBook age quicker because the 12.10 framework is asking for too much.

[Zotaccian]

It has a lot to do with hardware acceleration also, those cheap Chinese Android-tablets can play 1080p and some even advertise 2160p video without problem even though they only have 1 GHz processor, it is because those have GPU which has hardware acceleration built-in for such tasks. My 1.67GHz G4 absolutely chokes even with 720p video. DVD acceleration became available quite some time ago, Wikipedia mentions that Rage 128 has DVD acceleration features and I believe even the first iBooks are based on Rage 128:

http://www.ati.com/companyinfo/press/2000/4321.html

EDIT: Okay, it seems that first ones based on Rage Pro which had some features to help playback but not as sophisticated as Rage 128:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATI_Rage#3D_Rage_Pro
http://www.anandtech.com/show/505/3

Since the original Rage 128 chip, ATI has been a leader in DVD decoding on a single 2D/3D card. Their secret? The addition of Inverse Discrete Cosine Transform, or iDCT for short, support in hardware. iDCT is simply a part of the MPEG-2 decoding process, the standard by which DVD's are encoded. By offloading this function to the graphics card, the CPU is free to perform other tasks. ATI is the only graphics maker to support iDCT in hardware on something other than a dedicated MPEG-2 decoder card.

On the desktop, that means lowered CPU utilization so that other tasks can be performed. But in the mobile environment, that lowered CPU utilization translates into longer battery life while watching a DVD movie. ATI actually offered iDCT support in the original Rage Mobility for notebooks, part of the reason that they've been able to gain almost 40% of the mobile graphics market.

[Imixmuan]

...says in the inspector that boot times are actually about 30 seconds faster, he booted and then rebooted again during filming. It's obviously not going to compare to a mo-dern computer. Lubuntu 12.04 had many bugs that I got frustrated with, sound would disappear on waking from sleep, gstreamer didn't work, so I gave up and went back to Leopard, which is of course a joy to use.

[Falstaff]

Not sure why the G3 gets a bad rap. FOr anything non-video intensive, they can be as fast as the g4. Also, NASA must consider them powerful enough as the latest Mars rover was G3 powered.

[rjcalifornia]

Originally Posted by Falstaff

Not sure why the G3 gets a bad rap. FOr anything non-video intensive, they can be as fast as the g4. Also, NASA must consider them powerful enough as the latest Mars rover was G3 powered.

Probe this.

[Falstaff]

http://www.electronista.com/articles....on.curiosity/

[jbarley]

Originally Posted by Falstaff

Not sure why the G3 gets a bad rap. FOr anything non-video intensive, they can be as fast as the g4. Also, NASA must consider them powerful enough as the latest Mars rover was G3 powered.

I read somewhere that the G3 was the CPU of choice back when the Mars expedition planning was first started.
It took this many years to fruition and rewriting all the code for the CPU of the day was not a viable option.
So in other words it was not picked because it was the best, but more that it was still good enough.

[MisterKeeks]

Originally Posted by Falstaff

Not sure why the G3 gets a bad rap. FOr anything non-video intensive, they can be as fast as the g4. Also, NASA must consider them powerful enough as the latest Mars rover was G3 powered.

The new rover is not G3 powered because the G3 is an especially good processor. It's because that was the technology that was available at the time they started development. They developed the rover around the processor in some ways, and to switch processors would have a great potential for bugs to come up.

[jbarley]

Originally Posted by MisterKeeks

The new rover is not G3 powered because the G3 is an especially good processor. It's because that was the technology that was available at the time they started development. They developed the rover around the processor in some ways, and to switch processors would have a great potential for bugs to come up.

I think I just said that?

[MisterKeeks]

Originally Posted by jbarley

I think I just said that?

Sorry, I hit to create a new post, left, and finished posting, so I didn't see yours. Whoops...

[666sheep]

Originally Posted by jbarley

I read somewhere that the G3 was the CPU of choice back when the Mars expedition planning was first started.
It took this many years to fruition and rewriting all the code for the CPU of the day was not a viable option.
So in other words it was not picked because it was the best, but more that it was still good enough.

Link which Falstaff posted implies that high radiation-resistance of these chips was main reason. This seems to be true enough because:

Originally Posted by electronista

There have been over 150 RAD750 processors installed in a number of spacecraft from different nations since the radiation-resistant one was released in 2004.

[Falstaff]

Take away Altivec from a G4 and your have, at least in the early versions, basically a G3 processor. In their day, they were considered one of the most advanced and powerful processors. These chips haven't gotten any slower, just our perspective has changed. I'm typing this on a Pismo G3 400. Not my fastest portable, but more than adequate for the job.

I have read in other threads how some lament how you tube seems to be the de facto litmus test as to a processors power and I have to agree with them. Even My 333 G3 lombard can play back dvd video, with the pcmcia dvd playback card. You tube is merely one corner of the web. Yes streaming content is the fastest growing part of the web, But every tool has it's use. I don't take a honda civic 4X4ing. I use a 4 wheel drive vehicle made for the job. But that does not mean that the civic isn't a useful tool.

Some users have Powerpc computers as that's what they can afford. Some are hobbiest who like pushing older technology to it's limits. Some, can afford newer, but choose for one reason or another, not to throw away money on the latest and greatest because they realize that they just don't require it. I've owned two Macbooks and sold them both. For me they weren't necessary and for some reason just did not feel like a Mac. I enjoy using my Powerpc Macs more including my G3's and I use my Pismo every day. I also still enjoy using 68k Macs as well.

Will I have to upgrade someday? Not unless Powerpc units disappear completely (If you can't tell, I don't really give a flip about you tube. Most of it is such a waste of time and resources.) Sorry for the long winded post.

[MisterKeeks]

Originally Posted by Falstaff

Take away Altivec from a G4 and your have, at least in the early versions, basically a G3 processor. In their day, they were considered one of the most advanced and powerful processors. These chips haven't gotten any slower, just our perspective has changed. I'm typing this on a Pismo G3 400. Not my fastest portable, but more than adequate for the job.

I have read in other threads how some lament how you tube seems to be the de facto litmus test as to a processors power and I have to agree with them. Even My 333 G3 lombard can play back dvd video, with the pcmcia dvd playback card. You tube is merely one corner of the web. Yes streaming content is the fastest growing part of the web, But every tool has it's use. I don't take a honda civic 4X4ing. I use a 4 wheel drive vehicle made for the job. But that does not mean that the civic isn't a useful tool.

Some users have Powerpc computers as that's what they can afford. Some are hobbiest who like pushing older technology to it's limits. Some, can afford newer, but choose for one reason or another, not to throw away money on the latest and greatest because they realize that they just don't require it. I've owned two Macbooks and sold them both. For me they weren't necessary and for some reason just did not feel like a Mac. I enjoy using my Powerpc Macs more including my G3's and I use my Pismo every day. I also still enjoy using 68k Macs as well.

Will I have to upgrade someday? Not unless Powerpc units disappear completely (If you can't tell, I don't really give a flip about you tube. Most of it is such a waste of time and resources.) Sorry for the long winded post.

Everything you say is 100% accurate- in fact, the first G4 shared the mother board with the B&W. I don't see any true reason to move to Intel.

[Ariii]

Does the extra 100 MHz in the iBook SE's really make that much of a difference? On my 366 MHz Paris iBook, window animations were slow to load with LXDE.

[rjcalifornia]

Originally Posted by Falstaff

Take away Altivec from a G4 and your have, at least in the early versions, basically a G3 processor. In their day, they were considered one of the most advanced and powerful processors. These chips haven't gotten any slower, just our perspective has changed. I'm typing this on a Pismo G3 400. Not my fastest portable, but more than adequate for the job.

I have read in other threads how some lament how you tube seems to be the de facto litmus test as to a processors power and I have to agree with them. Even My 333 G3 lombard can play back dvd video, with the pcmcia dvd playback card. You tube is merely one corner of the web. Yes streaming content is the fastest growing part of the web, But every tool has it's use. I don't take a honda civic 4X4ing. I use a 4 wheel drive vehicle made for the job. But that does not mean that the civic isn't a useful tool.

Some users have Powerpc computers as that's what they can afford. Some are hobbiest who like pushing older technology to it's limits. Some, can afford newer, but choose for one reason or another, not to throw away money on the latest and greatest because they realize that they just don't require it. I've owned two Macbooks and sold them both. For me they weren't necessary and for some reason just did not feel like a Mac. I enjoy using my Powerpc Macs more including my G3's and I use my Pismo every day. I also still enjoy using 68k Macs as well.

Will I have to upgrade someday? Not unless Powerpc units disappear completely (If you can't tell, I don't really give a flip about you tube. Most of it is such a waste of time and resources.) Sorry for the long winded post.

You are totally right about it. The only reason I 'upgraded' to an iBook G4 was because my iBook G3 crashed and burned (flames and everything)

I used to do all my work there, chat, facebook, etc. As far as Youtube went, I used m.youtube.com and streamed all videos with RealPlayer. A fast an easy solution.

G3 was a powerful processor. My very first mac was a G3.

BTW, Youtube/Flash was always lame on the PowerPC Architecture. I bought a G4 back in 2006 (still have) and there were issues with Flash. It seemed to be that Flash was 'optimized' for x86 Architectures. Why do I say that? Well, it was very interesting to see a 500 Mhz Pentium 3 desktop computer Windows XP to run a youtube video with no issues, yesterday...

[Falstaff]

Flash is software and so we can conclude that the inability of powerpc hardware to run flash based video well, is a software issue, as it runs many other types of video well. This is a no duh moment for many, but please, stop blaming the hardware for failing to run crappy/faulty software is all I'm saying.

[cocacolakid]

Originally Posted by Falstaff

Flash is software and so we can conclude that the inability of powerpc hardware to run flash based video well, is a software issue, as it runs many other types of video well. This is a no duh moment for many, but please, stop blaming the hardware for failing to run crappy/faulty software is all I'm saying.

I nominate this as post of the year.

[rjcalifornia]

Originally Posted by Falstaff

Flash is software and so we can conclude that the inability of powerpc hardware to run flash based video well, is a software issue, as it runs many other types of video well. This is a no duh moment for many, but please, stop blaming the hardware for failing to run crappy/faulty software is all I'm saying.

I wasn't blaming the hardware, I was blaming Adobe. I mean it is quite annoying that a 500 Mhz Pentium 3 running windows xp is able to play youtube nowadays. I mean are you serious adobe? Were you teaming up with M$ guys to make flash sucky on PowerPC? Were u trying to push Apple off to the Intel cliff?

[justperry]

Originally Posted by rjcalifornia

I wasn't blaming the hardware, I was blaming Adobe. I mean it is quite annoying that a 500 Mhz Pentium 3 running windows xp is able to play youtube nowadays. I mean are you serious adobe? Were you teaming up with M$ guys to make flash sucky on PowerPC? Were u trying to push Apple off to the Intel cliff?

Erm, wasn't this Apple's fault, Flash on Windows had Hardware acceleration and Apple didn't allow this until a few years ago?

[Falstaff]

Originally Posted by rjcalifornia

I wasn't blaming the hardware, I was blaming Adobe. I mean it is quite annoying that a 500 Mhz Pentium 3 running windows xp is able to play youtube nowadays. I mean are you serious adobe? Were you teaming up with M$ guys to make flash sucky on PowerPC? Were u trying to push Apple off to the Intel cliff?

Sorry rjcalifornia. That was meant as a general rant to many here who dis powerpc hardware as it won't play YouTube well, especially the G3 platform, as if it's the end all be all of the web. I'm kind of wondering why they post here. But then life takes all kinds.

And yeah, someone should have spanked Apple and Adobe years ago as their squabbles have could have realistically taken place on any play ground in the world.

[rjcalifornia]

Originally Posted by justperry

Erm, wasn't this Apple's fault, Flash on Windows had Hardware acceleration and Apple didn't allow this until a few years ago?

Say what? So Adobe didn't even try to make things smooth for Apple without Hardware Acceleration, even though Apple was the main reason why they were getting super rich (Photoshop, Premiere, etc)?