Older computers usable today

[Project Alice]

So in another thread, the topic about PPC macs being usable today came up yet again. Particularly the one video we all (sarcasm) love so much about a quad G5 and a 2006 Intel Mini.

That got me thinking; we all talk about how PPC macs can definitely be made usable for us today, even on youtube though it can be a pain. Most of us will agree that the number 1 limitation for our hobby is the software, not the outdated hardware. I wanted to test this in a very "average use" like way.

Right now I am typing this on an IBM NetVIsta PC made around 2000 or 2001. A machine made the same time as most our beloved PPCs. It originally came with Windows 98, and a 1.5Ghz Pentium 4. Today, it is running with a 2.6Ghz Pentium 4, and Windows 7 with the latest, official version of FireFox quantum 80.0.1 at time of writing.
It has 1GB of ram, a GeForce 6200, and a 10GB Hard drive because that's what I had laying around when I set this up. I believe the drive is a bottleneck for the system.
On paper, that 2.6Ghz P4 should be fast. I honestly cannot tell a difference between it and the 1.5Ghz one that was in here before it.
This machine is the closest I could think of to compare a PPC with modern architecture. Being as its x86 it can obviously run a lot of software our old macs can't.

To start, I went directly to youtube. It was actually very, very slow. It felt about the same as using TenFourFox on a 1.5Ghz G4 PowerBook. Even typing this feels pretty slow. I feel like I'm using a slower G4.
I don't generally go to youtube on PPC macs, but I visit this site quite a bit on them. This forum when viewed on my dual 1.8Ghz G5 is much more responsive than this Pentium 4 at 70% higher clockspeed than the G5. I'm sure the extra CPU core is an advantage there though. I can say the same about my dual 1.42MDD. Using this IBM right now feels about the speed of using my 1Ghz iMac G4, which I would think is a much slower computer on paper than this one is.

Now I haven't done any optimizations on this PC at all, and like I said this old 10GB HDD is pretty paltry for Win7. I know how to optimize Windows pretty well, and that this computer isn't quite yet at it's full potential. That said I feel confident saying that certain PPC macs, are actually more usable than this PC with a modern OS, and modern browser out of the box.

I want to do a better test than this, with a larger more modern drive. Maybe even an SSD. There is only 2GB free space on this thing which has a huge impact on performance; do all the Windows tweaks for performance, max out the ram, this should be able to fit 1.5GB in it, as it has 3 ram slots like a QS PowerMac. I wanted to run some benchmarks but I don't think it would be a fair comparison with this HDD in it right now.

 

[Amethyst1]

I wanted to run some benchmarks but I don't think it would be a fair comparison with this HDD in it right now.

Would love to see some Geekbench nonetheless Great thread and interesting observations.

 

[Dronecatcher]

It'll be a good compare and contrast when you do fit another drive and optimise Windows 7 or install a contempoary Win XP iso?

I've got a couple of sub 2Ghz AMD PCs that aren't being used - I might get them out sometime and see what they can do.
I think one of them runs MicroXP with Windows Explorer deactivated and it boot's straight into Amiga Workbench 3.1 under WinUAE.

 

[Amethyst1]

I think one of them runs MicroXP with Windows Explorer deactivated and it boot's straight into Amiga Workbench 3.1 under WinUAE.

That's cool - there was something called "Amithlon" that ran an Amiga emulator on top of a stripped-down Linux kernel, and another project that did roughly the same but using QNX as a base OS ("AmigaXL" or something?).

HD-Zone - Amithlon

Time to get that up'n'running in VPC

 

[Dronecatcher]

That's cool - there was something called "Amithlon" that ran an Amiga emulator on top of a stripped-down Linux kernel

Yes, I vaguely remember that...I set one up (maybe about 15 years ago) - you had to use very specific hardware to get it to work.
Alas, once I got it up and running it wasn't that great - luckily, WinUAE and E-UAE JIT for PPC are so good and efficient exotic setups aren't needed anymore - I even had a 900Mhz Celeron Netbook fully Amiga-ed up

 

[Amethyst1]

I think it was from 2000 or 2001 or something - a lot has happened in the Amiga emulation dept since then.

That's probably an insane question - was there ever an add-on "ROM card" for 68k Macs that allowed running AmigaOS on them? I know that the other way round is possible.

 

[timidpimpin]

I've been using Windows (10) a lot more in the last year, and have fallen in love with Sandy Bridge (2011). Such a capable generation, even in 2020.

I've got two active systems. A Dell Optiplex 790 mid tower (i7 2600 - 16GB RAM - 1650 Super - SSD) and a 790 SFF (i5 2400 - 8GB RAM - 1050 Ti - SSD). The i7 system is honestly all the power I could ever ask for. Even for modern software and games.

But Mac OS will always be what I keep my personal files on. I simply cannot trust windows with that.

 

[Dronecatcher]

I think it was from 2000 or 2001 or something - a lot has happened in the Amiga emulation dept since then.

That's probably an insane question - was there ever an add-on "ROM card" for 68k Macs that allowed running AmigaOS on them? I know that the other way round is possible.

I don't think so - the problem would've been recreating the Amiga's custom chip set that levered it's power back then.

 

[Amethyst1]

I don't think so - the problem would've been recreating the Amiga's custom chip set that levered it's power back then.

Ah yep - the chips with the funny names

and have fallen in love with Sandy Bridge (2011). Such a capable generation, even in 2020.

SNB finally brought quad-cores to the masses, in desktops and laptops. And if you want, you can have Snow Leopard fly on it. As for them still being capable, that's probably because today's run-off-the-mill systems are still quad-cores, with six- and eight-cores trickling down into mainstream just recently.

 

[Dronecatcher]

I've been using Windows (10) a lot more in the last year, and have fallen in love with Sandy Bridge (2011). Such a capable generation, even in 2020.

Old PC prices are so accommodating compared with older Macs - I've been tempted to get an i3 or i5 a few times but I'm still not comfortable switching to Windows - and I really rate 8.1 and 10 - it's just that all my tools and hacks are firmly planted in the OSX camp.

 

[Amethyst1]

Old PC prices are so accommodating compared with older Macs - I've been tempted to get an i3 or i5 a few times but I'm still not comfortable switching to Windows - and I really rate 8.1 and 10 - it's just that all my tools and hacks are firmly planted in the OSX camp.

Is Linux a no-go?

 

[timidpimpin]

Old PC prices are so accommodating compared with older Macs - I've been tempted to get an i3 or i5 a few times but I'm still not comfortable switching to Windows - and I really rate 8.1 and 10 - it's just that all my tools and hacks are firmly planted in the OSX camp.

I'm never going to switch to Windows really. My ties to Mac OS and BSD are just too deep. About 80-90% of my Windows use is gaming and web browsing. Everything else is Mac or BSD.

 

[timidpimpin]

Is Linux a no-go?

Never!

 

[Dronecatcher]

Is Linux a no-go?

I've always liked the idea of Linux more than actually using it - I have had some great experience with distros in the past but can never fully commit.

I'm never going to switch to Windows really. My ties to Mac OS and BSD are just too deep. About 80-90% of my Windows use is gaming and web browsing. Everything else is Mac or BSD.

That's probably where I'll arrive - a Windows box for fairly painless browsing and Macs for creative stuff.

 

[timidpimpin]

Here's some food for thought. In my experiences the VM software on Windows runs much better and more efficiently compared to other platforms. It's so good that I have an SSD dedicated to Linux and BSD VM's on the i7 system I mention above. But I've never been a fan of Mac OS in a VM, so I use the real thing with Mac.

 

[Amethyst1]

@Dronecatcher - you probably know all this but eg your Mac Pro can run El Capitan (with a GPU upgrade if necessary) and that'll give you Firefox ESR 78 - I'm using that version too and have no issues browsing (as of today).
[automerge]1600684793[/automerge]

But I've never been a fan of Mac OS in a VM, so I use t

The lack of graphics acceleration makes for a very clunky experience, yep.

 

[Dronecatcher]

@Dronecatcher - you probably know all this but eg your Mac Pro can run El Capitan (with a GPU upgrade if necessary) and that'll give you Firefox ESR 78 - I'm using that version too and have no issues browsing (as of today).

My Mac Pro currently dual boots Snow Leopard and Mountain Lion - Mountain Lion was Waterfox and has great online compatibility. I've yet to migrate all my apps to ML though so largely still live in SL - I also have my Macbook dual booting ML with Win 8.1

 

[timidpimpin]

The lack of graphics acceleration makes for a very clunky experience, yep.

Some have gotten acceleration to work perfectly, but not many. I've seen a YT video where a guy got High Sierra accelerated properly in a VM, and did it via Pop!_OS IIRC.

 

[timidpimpin]

My Mac Pro currently dual boots Snow Leopard and Mountain Lion - Mountain Lion was Waterfox and has great online compatibility. I've yet to migrate all my apps to ML though so largely still live in SL - I also have my Macbook dual booting ML with Win 8.1

SL must scream on a Mac Pro.

 

[Amethyst1]

SL must scream on a Mac Pro.

You should see it on my 2011 MBP and its SATA3 SSD. it's a shame I can't put a PCIe SSD in that thing.

 

[Dronecatcher]

SL must scream on a Mac Pro.

It is pretty nimble but having said that, in respect to the GUI/Finder, as nimble as Leopard on my DLSD (with eyecandy turned off.)

 

[2984839]

I've been using Windows (10) a lot more in the last year, and have fallen in love with Sandy Bridge (2011). Such a capable generation, even in 2020.

I've got two active systems. A Dell Optiplex 790 mid tower (i7 2600 - 16GB RAM - 1650 Super - SSD) and a 790 SFF (i5 2400 - 8GB RAM - 1050 Ti - SSD). The i7 system is honestly all the power I could ever ask for. Even for modern software and games.

But Mac OS will always be what I keep my personal files on. I simply cannot trust windows with that.

Sandy Bridge was a big jump. I agree, it is still capable and I used a T420 for a long time, and only switched because the display panel quality was so poor. I judge a CPU performance by how often I notice it. If I can use the system without thinking about the CPU, it's fast. Sandy Bridge is perfectly fine in that regard.

 

[MacFoxG4]

I've always liked the idea of Linux more than actually using it - I have had some great experience with distros in the past but can never fully commit.

This^. I used to have Ubuntu 18 on my Lenovo Ideapad and while it ran better than Windows 10, I couldn't commit to it due to still needing Windows 10 for certain things. When I upgraded to an SSD in my Ideapad, I didn't have enough room for Ubuntu, so I went Windows only on the SSD. Windows 10 runs so much better on an SSD than on the old 5400 RPM HDD.

That's probably where I'll arrive - a Windows box for fairly painless browsing and Macs for creative stuff.

That's basically how I am, I use my Windows box for things that need mainstream Firefox/Chrome, but do my creative stuff on my Macs since I find Macs much more fun to use.

 

[Project Alice]

Would love to see some Geekbench nonetheless Great thread and interesting observations.

I could run one just to see. I’d have to use the same version of geekbench on Windows and Leopard.

It'll be a good compare and contrast when you do fit another drive and optimise Windows 7 or install a contempoary Win XP iso?

I've got a couple of sub 2Ghz AMD PCs that aren't being used - I might get them out sometime and see what they can do.
I think one of them runs MicroXP with Windows Explorer deactivated and it boot's straight into Amiga Workbench 3.1 under WinUAE.

XP might be a more “fair” comparison vs Leopard even though 7 came out not too long after. Just because Leopard has even less support than XP today. But I truly love Windows 7. It is a brilliant operating system, and in my eyes is the Snow Leopard or Tiger (depending on who you talk to) of Windows.

I've been using Windows (10) a lot more in the last year, and have fallen in love with Sandy Bridge (2011). Such a capable generation, even in 2020.

I've got two active systems. A Dell Optiplex 790 mid tower (i7 2600 - 16GB RAM - 1650 Super - SSD) and a 790 SFF (i5 2400 - 8GB RAM - 1050 Ti - SSD). The i7 system is honestly all the power I could ever ask for. Even for modern software and games.

But Mac OS will always be what I keep my personal files on. I simply cannot trust windows with that.

I have Windows 10 installed on my Mac Pro only for gaming. That’s it. It has it’s own drive and nothing important is on it. I would use Windows 7 instead but many games actually require 10.

Is Linux a no-go?

On PCs that aren’t used for gaming, such as my ThinkPad x230t, I run Linux. OpenSUSE specifically. I could run Windows 7, but since it’s EOL I try to run Linux in its place. Aside from the occasional game or tinkering, I have no requirement for Windows. Any game that is capable of running on that ThinkPads hardware actually works in Linux nativity thanks to steam.

I do not like Windows 10, and use it only when forced to. Such as many new AAA titles or xbox titles I play on my Mac Pro.
10 on my Mac Pro is tweaked to feel more like 7. But I still feel like I’m being spied on when using it, lol.

 

[repairedCheese]

Speaking as someone who does trust Windows with their files, and generally lives in Windows, you can get fairly recent versions of Windows running on rather ancient hardware. And because of that, you have a library of software open to you on a computer 20 years old that would just be impossible on a Mac.

So in another thread, the topic about PPC macs being usable today came up yet again. Particularly the one video we all (sarcasm) love so much about a quad G5 and a 2006 Intel Mini.

That got me thinking; we all talk about how PPC macs can definitely be made usable for us today, even on youtube though it can be a pain. Most of us will agree that the number 1 limitation for our hobby is the software, not the outdated hardware. I wanted to test this in a very "average use" like way.

Right now I am typing this on an IBM NetVIsta PC made around 2000 or 2001. A machine made the same time as most our beloved PPCs. It originally came with Windows 98, and a 1.5Ghz Pentium 4. Today, it is running with a 2.6Ghz Pentium 4, and Windows 7 with the latest, official version of FireFox quantum 80.0.1 at time of writing.
It has 1GB of ram, a GeForce 6200, and a 10GB Hard drive because that's what I had laying around when I set this up. I believe the drive is a bottleneck for the system.
On paper, that 2.6Ghz P4 should be fast. I honestly cannot tell a difference between it and the 1.5Ghz one that was in here before it.
This machine is the closest I could think of to compare a PPC with modern architecture. Being as its x86 it can obviously run a lot of software our old macs can't.
View attachment 956651View attachment 956649View attachment 956652
To start, I went directly to youtube. It was actually very, very slow. It felt about the same as using TenFourFox on a 1.5Ghz G4 PowerBook. Even typing this feels pretty slow. I feel like I'm using a slower G4.
I don't generally go to youtube on PPC macs, but I visit this site quite a bit on them. This forum when viewed on my dual 1.8Ghz G5 is much more responsive than this Pentium 4 at 70% higher clockspeed than the G5. I'm sure the extra CPU core is an advantage there though. I can say the same about my dual 1.42MDD. Using this IBM right now feels about the speed of using my 1Ghz iMac G4, which I would think is a much slower computer on paper than this one is.
View attachment 956648
Now I haven't done any optimizations on this PC at all, and like I said this old 10GB HDD is pretty paltry for Win7. I know how to optimize Windows pretty well, and that this computer isn't quite yet at it's full potential. That said I feel confident saying that certain PPC macs, are actually more usable than this PC with a modern OS, and modern browser out of the box.

I want to do a better test than this, with a larger more modern drive. Maybe even an SSD. There is only 2GB free space on this thing which has a huge impact on performance; do all the Windows tweaks for performance, max out the ram, this should be able to fit 1.5GB in it, as it has 3 ram slots like a QS PowerMac. I wanted to run some benchmarks but I don't think it would be a fair comparison with this HDD in it right now.

The Pentium 4 doesn't quite line up to anything PowerPC, though they were released around the same time the PowerPC G4 came out. But as slow as they are today, you have to consider the fact that the vast majority of Windows software can still be run on them. All one needs to do is run Windows 7, and you've got something like 90-95% support, still.

Linux has its own issues, as 32-support has been dropped from mainline support on the major distros. But there are still plenty that support it, and in current versions, too, from what I've been able to dig up. It does look like, if it's not already been cut, support for it is on the chopping block, though, depending on the distro.

But that comes down to community support, as most Linux things do.

If "getting on the internet" is the number one test of if a computer is worth using, and I personally don't think it is, those old 32-bit systems aren't in that much of a better place than our old Macs, but they'll likely have access and development for years to come.

If only because Windows doesn't change much, and backporting forks of Firefox to XP is apparently not nearly as hard as it is for anything else.