You're not the "normal end user"... and i meant how long it took for you to get it properly up and running the first time
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Is classilla dead?
- Thread starter Project Alice
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
You're not the "normal end user"... and i meant how long it took for you to get it properly up and running the first time
hence why im a bad example in that case
(thats another problem with Linux, define "working properly", because it really depends down to what your doing, for example if its a sever, then a blinking CLI is considered working normally but if its a desktop, that would not be considered working)
If you want definitive proof, I suggest you try it out yourself. With Debian installed on my PB, I have the luxury of using fast, currently supported browsers - i.e Netsurf, Arctic Fox, vanilla Firefox, Links, etc.. Not to mention, a well supported, and feature-rich productivity suite (Libre Office). And, most importantly, an operating system that has seen a security update this decade.
I keep Tiger installed on at least 1 machine, though, due to my ancient printer lacking drivers for newer operating systems.
Last edited:
I have. Ubuntu, Lubuntu and my most successful, Debian + Openbox on my 17" DLSD. That was a skeletal install, made for speed but it still left me wanting - plus there was no remedy for the imprecise touchpad driver.
I mentioned three things. Regardless, they're all very low end by today's standards, and yet they'll all manage the Internet fine, PROVIDED you give them the right tools to do the job. That was my point.
What version of Ubuntu, Lubuntu, and Debian? I must ask, if it still left you wanting for speed, did you install preload? Did you also add "vm.swappiness=10" and "vm.vfs_cache_pressure=50" to /etc/sysctl.conf? And did you use GNOME Disks to enable Write Cache under "Drive Settings..."?
I believe I found one several days ago in Lastic's thread about L i n u x and the FX5200Go.
Add "appletouch" (no quotes) to your /etc/modules file and reboot. That made trackpad use more or less fine on my PBG4 12". Just remember to use more of your fingerpad than tip when operating it.
[doublepost=1551383191][/doublepost]
Step 1: Log in using your credentials
Step 2: Sudo apt install lightdm mate-desktop-environment
Step 3: Reboot
Last edited:
Buntus 10, 12, 14 and 16, Debian 6,7,and 8 using PPC Luddites excellent guide:
http://ppcluddite.blogspot.com/2012/03/installing-debian-linux-on-ppc-part-i.html
The chief problem is the DLSD touchpad - it's different from all previous models and is a nightmare to use - no driver is adequate. Looking back, I guess speed wise Debian/Openbox wasn't bad at all - it was the dodgy touchpad, some clunky apps and using too many cycles for basic stuff like playing audio that began to grate. Oh and living with a GUI like this
I know what you're talking about, in regards to the touchpad problem. I know it's a pain, but the synaptics touchpad .conf file can be manually edited to fine tune it to your liking. I just dealt with the same problem on my 12" PB the other day, and got it going well after a bit of trial and error. I will say, as much as I've always HATED laptop touchpads, I've had an above average experience with them on Apple devices. Apple touchpads are second to none, except for maybe Thinkpads..
Last edited:
Not so on the DLSD - like I said, different configuration from all the others (USB as opposed to ADB I believe.)
That's what you're taking away from this? You're going there? Really? They're both Netburst chips on essentially the same architecture and you're quibbling that the Celeron is different enough to get counted as a third option. Right.
My point is that your point was rubbish. It's like comparing Aldi Baked Beans to an Acer Netbook as they're both low end when one's a 32p foodstuff and the other is a £199 computer, both from 2008. You just picked two things with 4 in the name.
The correct test is "Is it fit for purpose?"
Netburst computers and PowerPC G4 computers are fine for whatever offline stuff they did back in 2002. They'll still run the period software as well as they ever did. They don't belong anywhere near the modern internet. They don't have enough processing power not to be a frustrating experience, and the period operating systems are insecure.
Why wouldn't you spend £10 more and get a Core 2 Duo? There's no compelling argument for a P4.
I'll repeat for clarity as you're selectively picking things out :
Last edited:
I completely agree. Moreover, if you have a dedicated GPU manufactured in the last 10 years or so, a lot of what is rendered in the browser, including video, will be offloaded to the GPU, taking a significant load off of the CPU (I'm sure Phil alludes to this in the video). I can vouch for Netburst being completely usable on the web in the current year, due to first hand experience.
The discussion wasn't about going out and buying one but their viability for the web.
I don't think most people frequenting this forum - and certainly not most people participating in this thread - are looking to buy one of these. It's more likely they already have a P4, or G4, enjoy using it and would like to continue doing so.
A better question might be: Why spend anything, when what you have can do what you want?
Yet not a mention of the security issues...
[doublepost=1551395349][/doublepost]
I for one value my time. If I want to watch a YouTube video I'll pick the best available tool for the job. Which isn't a G4, or the Pentium 4 I built back in 2001.
Just because something will do a job badly, doesn't make it a good idea.
[doublepost=1551395349][/doublepost]
I for one value my time. If I want to watch a YouTube video I'll pick the best available tool for the job. Which isn't a G4, or the Pentium 4 I built back in 2001.
Just because something will do a job badly, doesn't make it a good idea.
Last edited:
What about security issues? A netburst processor can run any modern operating system designed for the x86 architecture. I'd argue that older x86 processors are even MORE secure than their modern counterparts, due to their lack of ME/PSP. Intel themselves have even admitted that ME could be used as a potential backdoor. Enjoy your literal botnet.
http://fortune.com/2017/11/21/intel-core-cpu-security-minix/
“Given this privileged level of access, a hacker with malicious intent could also use it to attack a target below the radar of traditional software-based countermeasures such as anti-virus...”
Last edited:
You haven't forgotten - this is a retro computing forum?? I don't think anyone is under the impression their G4/P4 is better than a contemporary machine.
Your points are well taken, but your proposed remedy doesn't really improve the situation. The Core architecture is prone to some significant security issues as well. There is no bulletproof architecture out there. The point of this thread (which I'll grant you, has wandered) was about running updated software, and updated software abates most security issues regardless of architecture. I wouldn't feel insecure running Win10 with proper anti-malware protection on a P4.
And sure, the latest Core∞RyzenARMgiganuclearsuperchip will do anything faster than chips from 15+ years ago. But not all of us need that kind of power, and certainly not for watching YouTube. My time is not wasted by watching a 1080p video on my old PowerBook, any more than it would be wasted on an iMac Pro. But an iMac Pro would be wasted on the task, and I wouldn't get to experience that feeling of "oh cool my computer can do this" that I get from my PowerBook; and my PowerBook doesn't do it "badly", it just... does it.
Yes. The Celeron and P4 are physically different chips put in physically different machines, and they're all architectures from the early 2000's, all somewhere around each other in terms of horsepower (perhaps minus the Celeron). Is there a problem?
Don't use the period operating systems.
While you're at it, don't use the period software because it's massively outdated and will not work with newer versions. As far as I see it, using old machines for old software is even more useless (aside from mild temporary amusement) than using old machines for the Internet (especially with web apps increasing in popularity), because old software is for the most part non-compliant with modern standards and file formats. You'd need to use the new software in compatibility mode to read the old software's products, in which case why bother in the first place?
Don't use the period operating systems.
By your logic, all computer systems of 10 years and older will do all jobs badly, except run period software, which is, for the most part, NOT compliant with the new software that the industry relies on. Meaning the two cannot talk to each other, essentially wasting everyone's time.
The OP asked a yes/no question that we would never have been able to give an answer for. How are we supposed to know if Classila is dead? We don't develop it. Dr. Kaiser has said precious little of the subject, yet who knows, maybe he's planning another update, we're not ones to know.
[doublepost=1551404332][/doublepost]
I'd much rather use a Pentium 4 than anything Core-related for that reason. In fact, I wouldn't mind to sometime in the future.
Last edited:
You do realize I was talking about the USB-based models. I know we both have those.
Last edited:
I disagree. I still use Adobe CS3 which is 2007 vintage and I used it professionally til 2015, the reason being it worked extremely well on my hardware and the end result (web graphics, printed publications and packaging artwork) was indiscernable from that made with contemporary software.
Same with Propellerhead Reason 4 which I use for music - it's an incredible piece of software from 2007 and when I make something, the end result doesn't howl 2007 - it could've been made in Reason 10.
So you've used that solution on a DLSD?
*Most* P4s can't run anything past Windows 7 as they lack NX support.
Pardon? That makes no sense. Writing Celeron on it doesn't change the underlying architecture. It's Netburst with less cache and lower bus speeds to artificially cripple the performance compared to the P4.
I'm going to stop posting in this thread now. It's going nowhere useful.
...Except that up until Nehalem, Intel put the IME in the Northbridge of the motherboard. Not that it matters, this is a load of tinfoilhattery anyways.