Intel Mini 10.4.11 to run PPC-Software

Roman78

macrumors 6502
Original poster
May 7, 2018
344
119
Eifel - Germany
I own a couple of Apple Mini's, 2 G4 and 3 Intel based.

I like those small computers, very low Power Consumption and pretty fast... whit some older software.

Now i installed OS 9.2 on of the G4's and 10.4.11 on an Intel Core2Duo 2.0 Ghz. But 10.4 is so PPC age. Well the Intel also runs 10.6 pretty good, but 10.4 is faster. But when running PPC based software is the Intel faster than a real PPC G4? Are there some tests somewhere?

Reason i ask this, is that PPC-Software has to be emulated on the Intel-CPU. And emulation always is slower. But a dual core 2 Ghz is so much faster than a single core G4 at 1.5 Ghz. Also 2 Gig of 667Mhs ram instead of 1 Gb 333 Mhz.
 

AphoticD

macrumors 68000
Feb 17, 2017
1,968
2,604
Australia
Rosetta, which is the software emulating PowerPC apps on an Intel Mac, will typically run a PowerPC app slower than when run on real PowerPC hardware, even with a Dual-core CPU. In saying that though, most PowerPC apps operate seamlessly on a Core 2 Duo. You won't really notice much of a reduction in performance unless it is a fairly heavy app.

Here are some benchmarks (Adobe CS2): http://barefeats.com/rosetta.html

You'll also find that emulated apps require quite a bit more memory than native apps.
 

Roman78

macrumors 6502
Original poster
May 7, 2018
344
119
Eifel - Germany
Impressive that a Single G4 1.67 runs faster than a Core Duo 2.0

I noticed this some days ago. Just needed a Speadsheet program and only found MS Office 2001 and installed it on a Mini core 2 Duo 2.16. and it felt slow.

@weckart I already have OS9 on my mini - Natively. Now i'm busy whit 10.4 on an Intel mac. But i think i go back to the G4 after this post. Maybe dual boot OS9 and 10.4.11

Or just one mini for OS9 and one mini for 10.4.11 :D

Hmmm hoe do i know if a software is PPC, intel or both?
 
Last edited:

bunnspecial

macrumors 604
May 3, 2014
7,260
4,342
Kentucky
Rosetta, which is the software emulating PowerPC apps on an Intel Mac, will typically run a PowerPC app slower than when run on real PowerPC hardware, even with a Dual-core CPU. In saying that though, most PowerPC apps operate seamlessly on a Core 2 Duo. You won't really notice much of a reduction in performance unless it is a fairly heavy app.
CS2 is actually probably the best/worst piece of software that you could use for this comparison :) . The reason for that is that CS2 is actually capable of using G5-specific instructions, and Rosetta never emulated a G5.

As a general rule, MOST software will run faster on a C2D-equipped under Rosetta than it will run natively on a G4. The difference becomes even more pronounced as you move to better and better Intel CPUs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AphoticD

Roman78

macrumors 6502
Original poster
May 7, 2018
344
119
Eifel - Germany
I think I won't use CS2 anyway. CS3 is more likely for Intel CPU.

Yesterday i played a little more whit it. That think is fast. I planned to upgrade the hard disk and make a dual boot whit WXP. This is a next big experiment, because 10.4 does not have Bootcamp.

I thought... I install 10.6 on it. Run bootcamp and install WXP. After that i install 10.4 on the 10.6 partition. Would that work? Oh and install rEFIt on it for a boot manager.
 

d-oost

macrumors 6502a
Jan 10, 2016
707
827
Impressive that a Single G4 1.67 runs faster than a Core Duo 2.0
Those benchmarks really don't prove that the G4 is faster than the Core Duo all-around. The Core Duo needs to emulate a PowerPC processor in order to run CS2, which is fairly processor intensive. It would probably be a different story if you had a piece of software that was natively available for both PowerPC and Intel, and then you could still argue about the optimization of the software on each platform, etc.
 
  • Like
Reactions: z970mp and AphoticD

AphoticD

macrumors 68000
Feb 17, 2017
1,968
2,604
Australia
I have a first gen MacBook Pro 15.4" Core Duo 1.83Ghz and a last gen PowerBook G4 DLSD 15.2" 1.67Ghz. They were built only months apart, but the MBP is certainly faster (now that I have installed a new battery).

The difference in speed is clear as day when running a web browser (TFF PPC and Firefox i386), but otherwise, they feel very similar for general use. Both have fresh installs of Tiger and Leopard. The MBP has an installation of Snow Leopard as well for a triple-boot setup.

The only thing the PowerBook has over the MBP is that it will natively run PowerPC software... Which for most people doesn't mean much at all. But, we here are drawn to the platform, and find it's more a matter of making good use of the hardware and not worrying too much about any kind of modern high-performance expectations... it's not going to happen.

You could probably setup Xgrid or Pooch for Parallel computing on a hundred G4s and G5s and still not even come close to the processing power achievable by a single iMac Pro.
 

z970mp

macrumors 68040
Jun 2, 2017
3,063
3,107
The Matrix
Both have fresh installs of Tiger and Leopard. The MBP has an installation of Snow Leopard as well for a triple-boot setup.
You know, I never got installing Leopard and Snow Leopard together. Why install Leopard, when Snow Leopard is better in just about every way?

Are there any benefits?
 

AphoticD

macrumors 68000
Feb 17, 2017
1,968
2,604
Australia
You know, I never got installing Leopard and Snow Leopard together. Why install Leopard, when Snow Leopard is better in just about every way?

Are there any benefits?
Leopard on the early Intels is substantially lighter on resources than Snow Leopard and IMO runs smoother than Tiger.

Leopard is also the right version for my digidesign Mbox and runs Pro Tools LE perfectly.

Despite this, I think Snow is a better OS and provides many benefits over the two Universal Binary systems, however I will typically try to install multiple systems on my older Macs for the sake of having different configs for software testing.
 

AphoticD

macrumors 68000
Feb 17, 2017
1,968
2,604
Australia
Snow takes up less Disk space than Leopard because of all the trimming of PowerPC code, but it is more feature packed and consequently uses more memory and CPU time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: z970mp

Roman78

macrumors 6502
Original poster
May 7, 2018
344
119
Eifel - Germany
Leopard on the early Intels is substantially lighter on resources than Snow Leopard and IMO runs smoother than Tiger.

Leopard is also the right version for my digidesign Mbox and runs Pro Tools LE perfectly.

Despite this, I think Snow is a better OS and provides many benefits over the two Universal Binary systems, however I will typically try to install multiple systems on my older Macs for the sake of having different configs for software testing.

Tiger is not Universal. I had searched for some time to find the right Intel Based restore disks for my Intel Mini. Although i had the retail version of Tiger it won't run on Intel. Retail was PPC only. Also, you cannot swap the disk between Intel and PPC machines like it was possible whit 10.5.

And i find Tiger runs smoother on the Intel Mini than Snow Leopard. I have 2 Intel Mini's 1.1 each whit one of the Operating-system, and Tiger feels smoother. Even the SL has an SSD installed. Now i ordered an Seagate Raptor 500 Gig for the 10.4 machine. We will see how that improved the performance.

And i decided not to install Windows on it. I still have another Windows PC based on Mobile technology equal to a Mini 1.1, but instead of that Intel GMA950 GPU it has a GT8600 installed. So much better for gaming. What else can you use windows for than gaming... :D
 
  • Like
Reactions: z970mp and AphoticD

AphoticD

macrumors 68000
Feb 17, 2017
1,968
2,604
Australia
Nicely clarified. I found the same thing with my MacBookPro1,1 and I ended up sourcing a Tiger 10.4.10 restore disc from a MBP3,1 then modified the machine codes to make it compatible.

In terms of booting both an Intel and PowerPC from the same drive, I think there was only a very narrow window of PowerPC hardware which could boot from a drive with a GUID partition map; the late 2005 G5 and the DLSD G4s come to mind. Did the early Intels boot from an APM formatted drive?

I think it’s great to see Tiger running on the early Intels. I’ve gotten so used to thinking of Tiger as a PowerPC OS.

I just picked up an early 2008 Core 2 Duo MacBook Pro (it is 2.5ghz @LightBulbFun). I think it has the 512MB 8600 GPU, so I look forward to seeing how it goes running Leopard.
 
Last edited:

z970mp

macrumors 68040
Jun 2, 2017
3,063
3,107
The Matrix
I think it’s great to see Tiger running on the early Intels. I’ve gotten so used to thinking of Tiger as a PowerPC OS.
Since TenFourFox is not available to Intel, that means web browsing on Intel 10.4 is as good as dead though, right?

I would imagine a similar scenario for Leopard.
 

Roman78

macrumors 6502
Original poster
May 7, 2018
344
119
Eifel - Germany
There still is iCab, but i didn't test that yet. And i read somewhere about a project to add plugins to Safari on 10.4 or 10.5 to make modern browsing possible. But i cant find the thread any more. This should be faster than TFF.
 

DearthnVader

macrumors 65816
Dec 17, 2015
1,152
5,746
Red Springs, NC
Apple made several enhancements to Rosetta from 10.4.4-10.6.8. It runs much better on 10.6.x, however it still has to emulate PPC instructions.

Of the PPC "emulators" Rosetta was the fastest, Qemu/PearPC/SheepShaver, however it was also the most limited because it doesn't emulate the entire system and can only run OS X apps for the G3 and G4.

I would say, if you installed 10.6.x on a modern CPU you'd likely be able to run the PPC apps that Rosetta could run faster than any G4 that ever came in an Apple Power machine. The easiest way to do that would be to install 10.6.x in Qumu-system-x86 tho finding a boot loader that works well with the older versions of OS X is somewhat troublesome. Qemu emulates a ICH9 chipset and a Penryn CPU with KVM acceleration at near the native speed of the host CPU.

Sometimes I run early versions of OS X in emulators with VT-x acceleration, tho I've never gotten around to benchmarking Rosetta.

Really, it all comes down to the apps you want to run, if they won't run under Rosetta then you'd need a full blown emulator or the real hardware.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AphoticD
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.