iBook G4 with Leopard (yet another post about this)

Discussion in 'PowerPC Macs' started by Tanner1294, Oct 28, 2011.

  1. Tanner1294 macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2011
    #1
    Simple enough, I have an iBook G4 at 1.33ghz, 1.5 gigs of RAM and the default 32 megabyte gfx card. So Quartz Extreme is supported and Core Image is Hardware Accelerated.
    My question is this: Is there anyway to smooth out the graphical effects? Even the simple ones that have been in EVERY release of OS X (like minimizing and sheet dialogs) are choppy and skip frames. They run perfectly in OS X Tiger and they haven't changed at all so they should work fine right? On Better Performance, while plugged in, on a good day, they run fairly smooth but they don't normally.
    I've gone through the system processes and nothing's bogging the system. This is also a fairly fresh install of Leopard so it hasn't built up any kind of clutter yet.
    I also have an idea.. would the older version of Quartz Extreme in OS X Tiger work better in Leopard? Like, downgrade Leopard's version down to Tiger?
     
  2. zen.state macrumors 68020

    zen.state

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2005
    #2
    Your idea is impossible. You can't "downgrade" Leopard to use the Tiger core GUI components like Quartz or Core Image. Those things are at the very core of each OS are are unique to each. If you want the faster GUI performance of Tiger then you need to use Tiger.

    There are however a few things you can do to improve the GUI performance in Leopard:

    -Switch the window minimizing animation to "Scale Effect" in the dock preferences and also turn off "Animate opening applications". Turning off magnification helps also. It's just silly eye candy.

    -Raise the "Turn off text smoothing for font sizes ___ and smaller" to above 8 in the appearance preference pane.

    -Keep applications that are running but not currently in use hidden to simply give the GUI less to draw. 32MB VRAM isn't much in Leopard so be as efficient in hiding whatever you are not using or quit it altogether.

    -If you use Spaces at all then consider turning off it's animations via the Terminal. It's all explained on this website. I did this myself and it makes Spaces 2-3x faster.

    All those things combined will help enough to notice a difference in GUI speed for sure. All but the Spaces hack can also be done in Tiger.
     
  3. MacHamster68 macrumors 68040

    MacHamster68

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2009
    #3
    +1 the only thing you can do is to disable everything that makes it visible that you got Leopard installed .
    You got to realise the GPU's despite good at the time your iBook was new is now on the low end of the scale below the intel GMA 950 , and because you cant fit another GPU inside a iBook you need to sacrifice something , either performance or the so called eye candy
     
  4. zen.state macrumors 68020

    zen.state

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2005
    #4
    You need to expand on that a bit because your sentence although vague it hints at things that are not even possible.
     
  5. Tanner1294 thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2011
    #5
    He means that I would need to disable any special effects that make Leopard look like Leopard (i.e. the 3D, reflective dock with spotlights).
    At this point I'm just going to downgrade back to Tiger. I'm not too in love with Leopard because I haven't used it long enough to so it's not too big a deal. I had Tiger on this thing since I got it and it's no big deal. I was just curious what the modern day interpretation of Leopard on an iBook would be :)

    Happy computing. :apple:
     
  6. zen.state macrumors 68020

    zen.state

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2005
    #6
    The way he had it worded seemed like he meant to tell the OS it's not that OS. The dock look is simply one more example of a way to make the GUI a tad faster.

    If you want to run a 6 year old OS that has not had a security update in 3-4 years then go ahead. I would never do that just for a slightly faster GUI. On my G4 tower there is very little difference between the two in performance. Just know that although the GUI may seem a bit snappier in Tiger the computer overall will hardly be faster at all.

    Also.. maybe in the future you shouldn't plan around assumptions (like the tiger quartz/core image in leo) but rather things that can actually be done.
     
  7. Tanner1294 thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2011
    #7
    Plan around assumptions? I had no assumptions because no one's had a definitive answer whether or not Leopard would work well. I found MANY old and new post saying that Leopard runs PERFECTLY on these old iBook's (even the 1ghz ones) and on the other side I found many saying it ran like total garbage. So I had no assumptions and decided to try it out. It wasn't an inconvenience to me or anything so it didn't matter if it failed.
    Oh and mind you, just because Tiger came out in 2005 doesn't mean it's bad, most apps for it were last update late 2009. Also if you want an old OS, check out the decade old (as of October 25th) Windows XP.

    Have a good day.

    ----------

    And performance wise, Leopard was like garbage on this compared to Tiger. I could only have 3 apps open at a time before everything slowed down (not just graphics). On Tiger the sky's the limit with what I can open ;)
     
  8. zen.state macrumors 68020

    zen.state

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2005
    #8
    If you can't run more then 3 apps with 1.5GB RAM then you're definitely doing something wrong. Sounds to me overall so far that you compute with a heavy footprint. If you became more efficient in how you do things you would not have these issues.
     
  9. MAC MAN JW macrumors 6502

    MAC MAN JW

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2011
    Location:
    Buffalo,Ny
    #9
    i wood stay with leopard if i wear you and if you have a iphone,ipad,ipod leopard is a must. Leopard runs fine on my PowerBook G4 12" 1.5Ghz with only 768MB Ram i can have 5+ tabs open in TenFourFox with no slow downs. i will have to go with zen.state on this one it may just be the way you use your computer :)
     
  10. Nameci macrumors 68000

    Nameci

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2010
    Location:
    The Philippines...
    #10
    I have the same iBook as well, 1.33GHz 12" which I have upgraded to 1.5GB of RAM.

    There is no lagging with leopard, QE/CI is working fine. I am using Onyx to turn off non-essential elements of the OS, like most of the things that I will not be using.
     
  11. Tanner1294 thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2011
    #11
    I compute just fine thank you very much, I'm one of the few people of the world who actually enjoyed using Windows Vista because I could get it to run smoothly. In all seriousness though it wasn't me. I switched most settings to be more efficient for the computer. It should be able to run Apple's Safari (with Facebook open) and Trillian (an IM app) without lagging and this was not the case.
    And don't be fooled by that little thing on the left of the forums, I am not a Mac "newb" and am nowhere near a computer noob in general. ;)
     
  12. 666sheep macrumors 68040

    666sheep

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2009
    Location:
    Poland
    #12
    ^^^So, if you are "power user", what do you do around here asking for help? Did you try what previous posters have suggested, or you already know all possible answers? ;) :p
     
  13. Tanner1294 thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2011
    #13
    I was just curious because Google let me down ;) Most answers were too old, and no one knew. Plus I am new to Quartz Extreme because I've never had to deal with it except on Hackintosh (but the PC had no gfx card and instead used the cpu and ram to do it all which barely works for anything besides video playback so it didn't fair any better than this iBook). Plus I haven't any suggestions besides "downgrade" or "buy a $2500 MacBook Pro" which I would GLADLY do if I could anywhere near afford it haha.

    And don't forget that even the most intelligent people on earth can still learn new things from talking to other people. :D
     
  14. 666sheep macrumors 68040

    666sheep

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2009
    Location:
    Poland
    #14
    So I'd renew my question: did you try what others (in this particular thread) have suggested?
    And don't forget: PERFECTLY could mean something different to different people ;) One of our forum members is using 10.5 on his 500 MHz Cube, and I believe him that's acceptable for his demands ;)
     
  15. Nameci macrumors 68000

    Nameci

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2010
    Location:
    The Philippines...
    #15
    The term useability is very subjective and very specific for the person who is in front and actually using the computer. And expectation is another thing. I limit my expectations on this old machines. I know what they can and they can't do. You just cannot push them over the limit and let them do things like the newer ones can do. But for the specific task that I want them to perform, the power that this little buggers have is more than enough.
     
  16. Tanner1294 thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2011
    #16
    I have tried (most of) what people have suggested, excluding Onyx. For me I love the aesthetic qualities of Mac OS X so yes, I'm one of those people who gets a bit bummed when you can't run anything graphically smooth. Acceptable for me though, is running better than a Windows based PC from the same time as the Mac ;) In this case Leopard was like jamming Vista onto a low-end PC from 2002, it just couldn't hold up. It worked, did it's job. But was fairly sluggish in doing so. Also even my games were running much slower than in Tiger. I had to lower the gfx in Simcity 4 to the point it looked like it was supposed to be a pixelated blur effect and it was just the game! The iTunes visualizer was also slowing down a lot, even the old one (did anyone else notice they got rid of the Options for the classic visualizer?). It was acceptable in the way that I brought it along with me for a few days of average use to see how it stood against Tiger, and it worked, did what it was supposed to, but it still took more battery among other things. (longer boot times in the morning, MS Word took longer to open but at least ran about the same as Tiger, and Safari 5 at least compensated for it's lack of responsiveness with faster load times).
     
  17. Jethryn Freyman macrumors 68020

    Jethryn Freyman

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2007
    Location:
    Australia
    #17
    Leopard is significantly slower than Tiger on my 466MHz Power Mac, both in responsiveness and benchmarks (I lost about 25% on Geekbench scores after the upgrade), but I can still have 8-10 programs idling in the background doing nothing, because idling programs take up very little CPU usage, and I've got plenty of RAM on that computer.
     
  18. burnout8488 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    May 8, 2011
    Location:
    Endwell, NY
    #18
    Facebook runs like hell on my 12" PBG4, even in TenFourFox on Tiger.

    Craigslist on the other hand...... runs like a dream :D
     
  19. MacHamster68 macrumors 68040

    MacHamster68

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2009
    #19
    exactly what i meant ;)

    i prefer Tiger :)

    and if you want it faster there is always OS 9 . ok it's not great when multitasking , but every OS has its downsides
     
  20. Tanner1294 thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2011
    #20
    I've got OS 9 on my iMac and on a second HDD in my PowerMac, I'm all set when it comes to having the best OS for internet ever ;)

    And really? Leopard on a 466mhz machine? Man I wouldn't even try it on an 867mhz machine which is the minimum required speed (of course you can go around that) for fear of it being slower than dirt haha.
     

Share This Page