Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Most Useful PPC Apps

SuperKerem

SuperKerem

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Oct 29, 2012
863
260
Hi guys,

I was wondering if the more experienced PowerPC users could help me out by telling me what some must-have PowerPC apps are, free or paid.

Unfortunately the more mainstream apps like Google Chrome are Intel only, so obviously do not run on PowerPC but I'm sure there are some alternatives?

Adobe CS4? iLife 09? Office 2008? VLC? I don't know!
 
keremtezcan said:
Hi guys,



I was wondering if the more experienced PowerPC users could help me out by telling me what some must-have PowerPC apps are, free or paid.



Unfortunately the more mainstream apps like Google Chrome are Intel only, so obviously do not run on PowerPC but I'm sure there are some alternatives?



Adobe CS4? iLife 09? Office 2008? VLC? I don't know!
Click to expand...


I would look at GavinStubbs09's PowerPC archive, they have a lot of good freeware/shareware.
 
My very biased list.

WEB BROWSING: TenFourFox and Leopard Webkit. Webkit is kept as the "as needed" browser for me with TFF being my default on PowerPC.

VIDEO PLAYBACK: VLC. End of discussion. They even release the source code if you're good at compiling.

NECESSARY QUICKTIME STUFF: Perian. This gives QuickTime a lot more flexibility for the very rare moment you will use QuickTime.

PRODUCTIVITY: Microsoft Office 2004 with the XML translator app. Office 2004 is the (imo) best on PowerPC. X just sucks compared to 2004 and 2008 is horrendously slow on all of my PPC systems. 2004 is the sweet spot.

EMAIL--Microsoft Entourage (included with Office 2004), TenFourBird, or Apple Mail. Out of the three, TenFourBird is the best maintained.

MESSAGES: Adium is good overall. I like using XChat Aqua for IRC chatting (yes I still do IRC).

STRIP THE INTEL CODE: TrimTheFat, which kept a database of apps that would turn naughty if the code was stripped. I'm not sure if the database is still maintained, but it works nicely.

BUT I WANT APPLE STUFF: iLife 09--seriously, iWeb is surprisingly robust for its age. iMovie 5--I have my reasons for wanting to use this interface as I can get more done in it. iMovie is also something that is surprisingly robust (seriously, try it before trying to get Final Cut Pro). iWork 09--it's the last that PPC can run and I do like Pages quite a bit for making stuff.
 
MysticCow said:
My very biased list.

WEB BROWSING: TenFourFox and Leopard Webkit. Webkit is kept as the "as needed" browser for me with TFF being my default on PowerPC.

VIDEO PLAYBACK: VLC. End of discussion. They even release the source code if you're good at compiling.

NECESSARY QUICKTIME STUFF: Perian. This gives QuickTime a lot more flexibility for the very rare moment you will use QuickTime.

PRODUCTIVITY: Microsoft Office 2004 with the XML translator app. Office 2004 is the (imo) best on PowerPC. X just sucks compared to 2004 and 2008 is horrendously slow on all of my PPC systems. 2004 is the sweet spot.

EMAIL--Microsoft Entourage (included with Office 2004), TenFourBird, or Apple Mail. Out of the three, TenFourBird is the best maintained.

MESSAGES: Adium is good overall. I like using XChat Aqua for IRC chatting (yes I still do IRC).

STRIP THE INTEL CODE: TrimTheFat, which kept a database of apps that would turn naughty if the code was stripped. I'm not sure if the database is still maintained, but it works nicely.

BUT I WANT APPLE STUFF: iLife 09--seriously, iWeb is surprisingly robust for its age. iMovie 5--I have my reasons for wanting to use this interface as I can get more done in it. iMovie is also something that is surprisingly robust (seriously, try it before trying to get Final Cut Pro). iWork 09--it's the last that PPC can run and I do like Pages quite a bit for making stuff.
Click to expand...

Wow. Thanks! There are tons of apps you have mentioned that I didn't know existed. Just a question - Could you play 1080p video using VLC on a Quad G5? and is Office 2004 better than 2008 on it?

----------
eyoungren said:
A few off the top of my head…

f.lux
Location X
Caffiene
Quicksilver
Avescroller
iScroll2
Lingon
Geektool Version 2.x is a System Preference Pane. Version 3 is an app. You can use either one.http://projects.tynsoe.org/en/geektool/download.php
DSW
NetGrowler
Shadowkiller
Bowtie
Click to expand...

I'll be sure to check these out ASAP!
 
keremtezcan said:
Wow. Thanks! There are tons of apps you have mentioned that I didn't know existed. Just a question - Could you play 1080p video using VLC on a Quad G5? and is Office 2004 better than 2008 on it?
Click to expand...
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/1836256/

As to Office 2004 and 2008, just as we have Tiger and Leopard fans here we also have Office 2004/2008 fans.

I am in the Office 2008 camp and believe it to be much better than 2004. Docx is also available natively with 2008, where with 2004 you have to have add XML ability on.

Those in the 2004 camp say that 2008 is slow, buggy and prone to quirks or crashing.

I've not found that to ever be the case, but we all have our own PowerPC experiences.
 
Cox Orange said:
What about LibreOffice ;) :D
Click to expand...
Lucha Libre? :D
lucha-libre-affiche1.jpg
 
keremtezcan said:
Just a question - Could you play 1080p video using VLC on a Quad G5?
Click to expand...

The Quad does 1080p no problem, mine was capable of 4K as well.
The best all round video player is VLC which is still being developed for PowerPC.

Being top of the pile, there's little the Quad can't do with the right software.
 
For image viewing, editing, and converting, I like GraphicConverter. It's like the Swiss Army Knife of graphic images. It will open just about any image format known to computing man.
 
eyoungren said:
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/1836256/

As to Office 2004 and 2008, just as we have Tiger and Leopard fans here we also have Office 2004/2008 fans.

I am in the Office 2008 camp and believe it to be much better than 2004. Docx is also available natively with 2008, where with 2004 you have to have add XML ability on.

Those in the 2004 camp say that 2008 is slow, buggy and prone to quirks or crashing.

I've not found that to ever be the case, but we all have our own PowerPC experiences.
Click to expand...

I have a love/hate relationship with Office 2008.

I require XML compatibility(and I need full XML compatibility-not just the ability to open .docx or .pptx files) so it is my only PPC option. I also much prefer the UI to 2011, which I've used extensively also(although admittedly it does take me a few minutes to re-adjust to either one).

For normal sized documents, I have no issues with 2008.

My biggest issues are tied to large documents, and in particular with the integration between Word 2008 and a piece of software I require called Endnote. Endnote is a citation management software with a(theoretically) excellent "Cite while you write" feature. Basically, when writing a document, you select a reference from your Endnote library(which is in turn generated from academic/professional search engines), place the cursor in your document where you want the citation, and then click "insert citation." Every time it does this, it parses the document for citations and formats them in the appropriate order for the references at the end, but in turn inserts a lot of its own code into the document.

When working with large documents and using Endnote, I've found that after a few minutes the whole thing will slow down to where it is unusable and then Word will crash and require a restart.

I have '08 and '11 installed side by side on both my Macbook Pros, and find '11 much more stable in this regard. Of course, '11 is out of the question for PPC.

Aside from this specific use case, in general I find Office '08 to be a good piece of software. Often, on my work computer(a dual core 2.0 G5) I'll have Word, Excel, and Powerpoint open side-by-side. I've found the cross-program integration(i.e. copying and pasting figures from Excel to Powerpoint, or from Powerpoint to Word) to be a lot less buggy in '08 than it is in '11(where I'll sometimes find myself stuck in an endless loop of Excel and Powerpoint each waiting for the other to complete an action).

I've often said that the biggest issues I have on Macs relate to Microsoft products. Office is one example. I've also had online Outlook(again, work email) crash my browser plenty of times.
 
eyoungren said:
we also have Office 2004/2008 fans.
Click to expand...

Do we? They must be very quiet! :p

I've never used 2008 myself. I use 2011 on my Early 2011 13" MBP, 2004 on my OS X PPC Macs, and 2001 on my 8600 running Mac OS 9.2.2.

However, despite never actually using 2008, I can't image how 2008 cold be as slow as people claim around here. Would it be notably slow on my Dual Processor 1GHz Quicksilver, or my Dual Core 2.0GHz G5? I am assuming those that hate it must be using iBook G3's or something, where simply everything is slow. :L
 
Last edited:
tevion5 said:
However, despite never actually using 2008, I can't image how 2008 cold be as slow as people claim around here. Would it be notably slow on my Dual Processor 1GHz Quicksilver, or my Dual Core 2.0GHz G5? I am assuming those that hate it must be using iBook G3's or something, where simply everything is slow. :L
Click to expand...

I've used '08(and in the recent past was doing so daily) on computers with identical specs. My QS is maxed at 1.5gb, while my G5 has 10gb.

Other than the Endnote problem I mentioned, for light use you won't notice the difference between '08 on either of these computers and '11 on a recent Intel Mac.

The only issue I had was when I started to get up to 30 or so citations(my thesis had over 100 by the time I was finished). My Quicksilver would take about 5 minutes to insert a citation, while I found the G5 and my 13" late '11 MBP(08 on the former, 11 on the latter) to each take about a minute or minute and a half per citation even when it got up to 100. As I said above, Endnote has to redo the entire references pages every time you insert a citation, which takes a surprising amount of computational power.
 
bunnspecial said:
Endnote has to redo the entire references pages every time you insert a citation, which takes a surprising amount of computational power.
Click to expand...

Well I'll say! Surprising is the word. Just to add a citation?

I mean, a project in ProTools 9 or Logic Pro X could be around a 300-500MB group of files, 30-50 tracks, all with their own pile of effects, compressors, automation settings and so on. And when I bounce that orgy of data into a single MP3 or WAV file, it takes about maybe a minute and a half or less, to do all of that! As it does so the fans on my Mac will roar up and the i5 is put under a lot of stress.

What in gods name is taking so long to add a citation? o_O

From my own programming knowledge, I can't imagine such a long waiting time is a result of anything other than poor code. Maybe the people in audio engineering software should teach the desktop publishing folks to use C once in a while, instead of 6 million Python loops or something.
 
tevion5 said:
Well I'll say! Surprising is the word. Just to add a citation?

I mean, a project in ProTools 9 or Logic Pro X could be around a 300-500MB group of files, 30-50 tracks, all with their own pile of effects, compressors, automation settings and so on. And when I bounce that orgy of data into a single MP3 or WAV file, it takes about maybe a minute and a half or less, to do all of that! As it does so the fans on my Mac will roar up and the i5 is put under a lot of stress.

What in gods name is taking so long to add a citation?
Click to expand...

Endnote is really a poorly coded program, but unfortunately it is what it is and is enough of a defacto standard in my department that I'm stuck with it.

As far as I know, adding a citation involves the following steps:

1. Add a reference in the document back to the citation number in the Endnote library

2. Parse the document for other citations, then renumber everything(when using footnotes or endnotes) to reflect the position of the new citation

3. Make sure the new one isn't a duplicate of one already used-if it is the new citation will need to either reflect the footnote/endnote number where used previously, or possibly renumber everything again to reflect the new citation appearing earlier in the document

4. Finally-the real kicker that takes such a long time-the entire bibliography/references page is completely regenerated from scratch. Every reference is regenerated in the appropriate order.

I'll also add that if you attempt to manually format the references from within Word, Endnote will go nuts and effectively not let you do that. Any formatting changes you make have to be specified from within Endnote.
 
bunnspecial said:
Endnote is really a poorly coded program, but unfortunately it is what it is and is enough of a defacto standard in my department that I'm stuck with it.

As far as I know, adding a citation involves the following steps:

1. Add a reference in the document back to the citation number in the Endnote library

2. Parse the document for other citations, then renumber everything(when using footnotes or endnotes) to reflect the position of the new citation

3. Make sure the new one isn't a duplicate of one already used-if it is the new citation will need to either reflect the footnote/endnote number where used previously, or possibly renumber everything again to reflect the new citation appearing earlier in the document

4. Finally-the real kicker that takes such a long time-the entire bibliography/references page is completely regenerated from scratch. Every reference is regenerated in the appropriate order.

I'll also add that if you attempt to manually format the references from within Word, Endnote will go nuts and effectively not let you do that. Any formatting changes you make have to be specified from within Endnote.
Click to expand...

Even so, we are still talking about text manipulation here. I've written a program in C that scans the entire text of Les Miserables and makes character associations, then puts those associations into a text file, and finally displays it as a associative 3D web. That all takes less than 10 seconds from execution to display! xD
And I can assure you, I am no prize winning programmer.

Code efficiency really has gone down the drain over the last 2-3 decades. The 1986 re-release of Ultima I was done entirely in assembly! And that runs like a dream on my (then 7 year old) Apple II Plus. It was only remade because Lord British created the first version in BASIC as a teenager.
 
Last edited:
I'm no expert at programming, but I agree largely that programming quality has gone down hill.

New software does have a lot of feature that .01% of the user base uses(often at the expense of features that are actually useful) but I've noticed how much code efficiency has decreased.

I've never been a big gamer, but my general opinion is that many newer games seem to go nuts over graphical effects at the expense of enjoyable gameplay.

As an example, I love playing Railroad Tycoon II and have it loaded on several of my old Macs(as well as a couple of XP boxes I have lying around). I also spent a not insignificant amount of money on "Railroads" in the App store, which is the most recent release in the "Railroad Tycoon" evolution. The graphics are miles ahead of RTII, but the gameplay has been seriously "dumbed down." Track auto-routes and even alters the terrain for you(RTII required a significant amount of forethought about laying track) and it's completely stripped any ability for individual control and routing of trains.

I'm perfectly content to play RTII, Civilization II, Sim City 2000(although I do like 3000), Sim Tower, and the other mid-90s games I grew up playing. I can still have a ton of fun playing those-I'd say even more so than some of the newer versions of these games that I've bought.
 

I love Civ 5. I think it's a terribly unoptimised resource hog, but great fun. It's network code is similarly poor, being highly unreliable. Useless for a game that can take hours or days, to be having random dropouts. But when it does run, its brilliant.

Conversely, GTA V is an example of an excellently optimised game. (Funny, as GTA IV was anything but!). It runs at 30FPS & 720P on my 2006 PowerPC PlayStation 3, and 45FPS & 720P on an old Dell in my college room with an Intel E8400, 8GB RAM, and a humble GT730. Of course it runs beautifully and as smooth as silk on my high end gaming rig at home.

But yes I remember when I was young playing on my dad's Packard-Bell with Windows 98. Age Of Empires, Railroad Tycoon II, Lego-Loco and Empire Earth were some of my favourites. The Golden-Age of strategy! :D

That old Wintel piece of crap had a Pentium II 233MHz and 64MB Ram. It could handle any game we got. You didn't really have to worry about specs back then, as I never even thought about it and my dad was contemporarily clueless.

Ha! My dad never did have great taste:
http://web.archive.org/web/20081210...e/129857-11/the_10_worst_pcs_of_all_time.html
 
Last edited:
tevion5 said:
That old Wintel piece of crap had a Pentium II 233MHz and 64MB Ram. It could handle any game we got. You didn't really have to worry about specs back then, as I never even thought about it and my dad was contemporarily clueless.
Click to expand...

I can remember my first spec "shock" was on MS Train Simulator. It ran fine on my dad's computer(don't remember what it was) but I initially couldn't get it to run on my 266mhz 6x86 that I think had 256mb of RAM. I had to break down and buy an AGP graphics card for it(rather than using the on-board graphics). I think I bought an ATI Rage or something like that which we would laugh at today-if I remember right, it had about 8mb of VRAM, which was twice what the game needed.
 
bunnspecial said:
I can remember my first spec "shock" was on MS Train Simulator. It ran fine on my dad's computer(don't remember what it was) but I initially couldn't get it to run on my 266mhz 6x86 that I think had 256mb of RAM. I had to break down and buy an AGP graphics card for it(rather than using the on-board graphics). I think I bought an ATI Rage or something like that which we would laugh at today-if I remember right, it had about 8mb of VRAM, which was twice what the game needed.
Click to expand...

Oh damn I could always run MS Train Simulator, but it would always crash after maybe 15 mins. I always got bored after that anyway, and Id just start up and see how many ways I could derail. Must have been a Rage 128 in there.
 
tevion5 said:
However, despite never actually using 2008, I can't image how 2008 cold be as slow as people claim around here.
Click to expand...

If my memory is reliable, someone from the MBU at Microsoft was posting here when 2008 came out trying to get feedback, bug reports and other suggestions. According to her, 2008 represented a code rewrite rather than an update or tweak of 2004, which is why VB was left out of it as it was too much for the MBU to squeeze in by the release deadline.

If you remember the first rule of Apple; never buy version 1 of anything Mac related, then the slowness of 2008 comes as no surprise. 2011 was the Snow Leopard to 2008's Leopard.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back