PowerPC G5 - very bad during browser usage

[vddrnnr]

Hi guys,

My 2 cents on this
Well I wrote a long speach and then decided to forget it.
I'm posting this from a "rich text editor" which has the necessary functionallity and my CPU use
is very low when I type ( arround 20% ) so I think the problem is not the machines
it's the software.
I think if we want to better use our machines we need to setup "community" projects
and try and involve more people.
Maybe we can start "bounties" and get the interest of professional programmers?

Best regards,
voidRunner

 

[iluvmacs99]

Both my PowerMac G5 1.8 SP PCI and my PowerBook G4 have a Geekbench 2 benchmark similar to an iPad 3rd gen or iPad Mini, so both will behave as such when you set TenFourFox's useragent as an iPad with foxPEP and uMatrix. Having said that, both of these systems can't compare against my Macbook Pro 17" with a Core 2 Duo 3.06Ghz CPU running Mint 19.3 or my Mac Pro 5,1. They are more modern and way much faster and nicer to browse with, especially on my Mac Pro. But having said that, it doesn't mean you can't browse and use both of these machines in 2020. In fact, I am listening to a Youtube video content on my Powerbook G4 with TenFourFox. There are some things my Intel machines can do better, but for home use the PowerMac and PowerBook are quite capable.

 

[Dronecatcher]

Both my PowerMac G5 1.8 SP PCI and my PowerBook G4 have a Geekbench 2 benchmark similar to an iPad 3rd gen or iPad Mini, so both will behave as such when you set TenFourFox's useragent as an iPad with foxPEP and uMatrix.

But don't make the mistake off thinking they both will have same performance - there are huge differences via the software and hardware support and online, that's where more recent devices will be better.

 

[iluvmacs99]

But don't make the mistake off thinking they both will have same performance - there are huge differences via the software and hardware support and online, that's where more recent devices will be better.
[automerge]1586697310[/automerge]

Actually, I own an old iPad Mini and while Youtube still works fine and ok, iOS Safari had long lost support and most current web browsers won't work with iOS 9. Whereas both my G5 and G4 running TenFourFox still can access CNN (I use it as a browser test) and some banking sites that the iPad Mini simply can't. I think if it weren't for the continual devvelopment and security refinement of TenFourFox, then I would not find much use out of these PPC systems.

 

[Dronecatcher]

Actually, I own an old iPad Mini and while Youtube still works fine and ok, iOS Safari had long lost support and most current web browsers won't work with iOS 9.

Yes, that's very true and yes, I find via TFF and LWK my PPCs are more web compatible than my Mac Pro.

 

[wicknix]

My statement assumed, since we're on a Macintosh forum, the use of OS X.

Umm, last I checked, OS X is an operating system. The computer used in that video is a Macintosh.

 

[vddrnnr]

Hi all,

My computer/technology related journey started a long time a go so I've had contact
with almost every kind of it since the 80s so I think I can make a pondered reflection if
you all allow me ;-)

I think what we all want is the best for our beloved Macs.
It's not in discussion if newer hardware is capable of doing better than our "classic" machines.
If anyone tries to contradict that reality it's already a lost battle without even saying 1 word.
I also think that these machines we're put to rest too soon and they are capable of much more than
what they we're "allowed" to do.
I also think we can give them "some" part of what it could have
been if Apple wen't another way and thats also true for early intel Macs being the "only" difference that
those are still in line with the current architecture so possibilities are greater like other OSs ( read Linux
and Windows ) for Intel are uptodate and optimized so they will always have better possibilities to
perform and stay "current" or at least be used as daily drivers.
We also need to look to what we want to do with them these machines we're powerfull
with the software being used until a few years ago ( especially music software and
digital work like image processing ) and also a lot of "older" software" still works "well"
like Microsoft Office ( it's my IMHO ).
Other software could also work very well but their respective makers decided it was in the
"best interest" of everyone to discontinue PPC compatibility which of course we all disagree ;-)
Newer software that came out after the PPC era will also be a challenge or almost impossible
so if you need all the bells and whistles from recent MacOS versions you won't find them here....

That said efforts like Wicknix Lubuntu and Arctifox/SpiderWeb... really show the potencial these machines
still have while also giving access to "current" software and if we talk about the "last of them" the dual core G5s
the possibilities are even greater...

PS. To the OP there are a lot of options to optimize your powermac G5 and if you read carefully the
info on these forums starting with the wikis you'll be able to do a lot with it with "acceptable" performance
but do not try to compare it to a new laptop/desktop which has 15 years "extra" development advantage
and all the software industry behind them optimizing their software for it.

And now a bit of geek:
it's like the BORG said:

RESISTANCE IS FUTILE

But you can also say like the Vulcan:

LIVE LONG AND PROSPER

Best regards,
voidRunner

 

[Dronecatcher]

.

 

[z970]

Both my PowerMac G5 1.8 SP PCI and my PowerBook G4 have a Geekbench 2 benchmark similar to an iPad 3rd gen or iPad Mini, so both will behave as such when you set TenFourFox's useragent as an iPad with foxPEP and uMatrix.

Even iOS sites are beginning to bear weight. You can get better performance with an Android 4.4 user agent.

Go to about:config.

Make a new string called general.useragent.override.

Paste into the string box:

Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; Android 4.4) AppleWebKit/533.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile Safari/533.1

Restarting the browser is not necessary.

Couple that with ShadowKiller, and you're good to go. Alternatively, you can simply download AquaWeb.

 

[eyoungren]

Hi guys,

My 2 cents on this
Well I wrote a long speach and then decided to forget it.
I'm posting this from a "rich text editor" which has the necessary functionallity and my CPU use
is very low when I type ( arround 20% ) so I think the problem is not the machines
it's the software.
I think if we want to better use our machines we need to setup "community" projects
and try and involve more people.
Maybe we can start "bounties" and get the interest of professional programmers?

Best regards,
voidRunner
View attachment 905362

You are correct that the problem is software. Inside a browser that software is referred to as Javascript and it has an adverse effect on our Macs. Which is why a lot of us try to shut off what we can by using uMatrix or NoScript.

If you click the gear on the right side of the formatting bar so it turns red, it shuts off the Javascript on this site that has to do with posting. All that stuff runs in the background when the gear is not off and slows you down. 20% of CPU is not low. Shutting that JS off and using tags for formatting will make your Macs quicker on this forum.

Above and beyond my T4Fx prefs file and foxPEP - what exactly is it that you're trying to get out of the browser? Both of those were/are community projects which anyone can contribute to.

 

[vddrnnr]

Hi eyoungren,

If I sounded like not giving the respect for yours and z's work my apologies.
This is just something i "developed" as an alternative "custom rich editor" "Javascript" using
greasemonkey my CPU usage when browsing a page which has the posting functionality I only
have 7% CPU usage without stopping all the javascript in the site although I'm running
uMatrix and uBlock.
When I start typing it goes to 20/25 tops but texting remains fluid and it feels like a regular recent laptop
no slowdowns whatsoever
And I can still use all the functionality of uploading files, etc....

Best regards,
voidRunner

 

[defjam]

You are correct that the problem is software. Inside a browser that software is referred to as Javascript and it has an adverse effect on our Macs. Which is why a lot of us try to shut off what we can by using uMatrix or NoScript.

Is the software really that bad? On my PowerMac G5 systems JavaScript consumed almost all of the CPU making for a miserable browsing experience. Disabling definitely makes an improvement. However on the 2009 Mini I've purchased CPU utilization is very low, even with JavaScript enable. Is the Java runtime on the PPC platform really that bad? Or TFF's implementation?

 

[z970]

Is the software really that bad? On my PowerMac G5 systems JavaScript consumed almost all of the CPU making for a miserable browsing experience. Disabling definitely makes an improvement. However on the 2009 Mini I've purchased CPU utilization is very low, even with JavaScript enable. Is the Java runtime on the PPC platform really that bad? Or TFF's implementation?

For starters, TenFourFox is gimped in a way most other browsers are not. Everything is entirely CPU bound, meaning TFF makes zero use of the GPU. Not accounting for the bloat and cruft TFF is already known for, this is a tremendous part of why browsing is so slow for you.

So, when you have a browser that does everything solely through the processor, and then you pile on 23 CPU-bound scripts that forums.macrumors.com alone requires to properly operate, you have a very disadvantageous situation that gives the false impression of the hardware being at fault, when it is in fact the software (OS, libraries, browser, websites) that is ruining performance.

I can't make this up:

Your 2009 Mini is running an operating system that supports GPU acceleration. Therefore, the CPU isn't busy with everything the browser alone demands, and it can instead focus on running the scripts themselves while the GPU deals with the rendering.

This is why @wicknix has demonstrated his Mac Mini G4 running Linux. When you bypass all of the artificial software restrictions, you get a very different experience that paints a different, more truthful picture of the hardware in question.

Therefore to answer your inquiry; yes, the software really is that bad.

 

[defjam]

For starters, TenFourFox is gimped in a way most other browsers are not. Everything is entirely CPU bound, meaning TFF makes zero use of the GPU. Not accounting for the bloat and cruft TFF is already known for, this is a tremendous part of why browsing is so slow for you.

[ snip ]

Your 2009 Mini is running an operating system that supports GPU acceleration. Therefore, the CPU isn't busy with everything the browser alone demands, and it can instead focus on running the scripts themselves while the GPU deals with the rendering.

Does that apply to OS X 10.6 Snow Leopard? I had a pleasant browsing experience with 10.6.8. I wasn't able to try it with Leopard as this Mini requires version 10.5.6 at a minimum and the only versions I have on hand are 10.5. I didn't think it was important enough to obtain a 10.5.6 version but maybe I should do that now.

[ snip ]

Therefore to answer your inquiry; yes, the software really is that bad.

Then what OS X alternatives can be substituted? I already tried LWK and found its performance acceptable but it was so crash prone that it isn't a feasible alternative. Is there something else?

 

[Dronecatcher]

I already tried LWK and found its performance acceptable but it was so crash prone that it isn't a feasible alternative.

Did you run all of the additional scripts that came with the package? This and setting the default user agent to Internet Explorer 9 fixed the crashing for me (I also use a custom hosts file to stop most adverts.)

 

[defjam]

Did you run all of the additional scripts that came with the package? This and setting the default user agent to Internet Explorer 9 fixed the crashing for me (I also use a custom hosts file to stop most adverts.)

What additional scripts?

J/K...yes, I read the documentation and ran one of the scripts (the others didn't seem to be necessary for my testing). No, I did not change the default user agent.

 

[Dronecatcher]

What additional scripts?

J/K...yes, I read the documentation and ran one of the scripts (the others didn't seem to be necessary for my testing). No, I did not change the default user agent.

All of them will make a difference and I find the ua downgrade the greatest performance improvement for sites that aren't compromised by it - for those that are you just toggle to a recent ua via the Develop menu.

 

[defjam]

All of them will make a difference and I find the ua downgrade the greatest performance improvement for sites that aren't compromised by it - for those that are you just toggle to a recent ua via the Develop menu.

Performance wasn't the issue, lack of stability was.

 

[Dronecatcher]

Performance wasn't the issue, lack of stability was.

The ua downgrade has fixed stability.

 

[defjam]

The ua downgrade has fixed stability.

At this point I'm done with it unless someone can recommend a one stop solution. Having to download an alternative, then download a plug in (which isn't available through the standard method), then configure (initially and while browsing site) or run scripts is something I'm not interested in. I enjoy my older systems (my 80386 PC arrived yesterday, something "new" to play around with) but I'm not interested in expending any more effort than I already have getting the G5 to reasonably (performance wise) browse the web. Especially when every solution has some downside.

 

[z970]

Does that apply to OS X 10.6 Snow Leopard? I had a pleasant browsing experience with 10.6.8.

It does. As well as hardware H264 decoding for QuickTime Player. Browsers may or may not be subject to that.

If you are using a Firefox-based browser, go to about:support and see for yourself.

Then what OS X alternatives can be substituted? I already tried LWK and found its performance acceptable but it was so crash prone that it isn't a feasible alternative. Is there something else?

As far as software that runs on Leopard, there are currently little to no independent alternatives to my knowledge. TenFourFox and Leopard WebKit are the extent of community efforts for the platform.

IceWeasel-PPC and Arctic Fox are both still CPU-bound, the former a stripped rendition of TFF FPR13, and the latter's PowerPC OS X port being of... experimental quality.

Alternatives for Mac OS X and the software it offers is another story, however. Currently, there are significant efforts to improve the usability, reliability, and user presentation of most PowerPC Linux distributions (which do not have the limitations OS X does). Major strides on this front have been made within the last several years, accompanied of course by plans for the future.

So certainly, there is life yet in the platform. The only question is whether or not the end user is willing to dive in.

 

[sparty411]

Hi guys,

My 2 cents on this
Well I wrote a long speach and then decided to forget it.
I'm posting this from a "rich text editor" which has the necessary functionallity and my CPU use
is very low when I type ( arround 20% ) so I think the problem is not the machines
it's the software.
I think if we want to better use our machines we need to setup "community" projects
and try and involve more people.
Maybe we can start "bounties" and get the interest of professional programmers?

Best regards,
voidRunner
View attachment 905362

I think OSX might be a dead end for these machines, though. The SDK's on Tiger and Leopard are absolutely ancient. I'd be willing to pay someone to fix Linux hardware support for these machines, and fix some applications that are critical for daily usage. I completely agree about the limitations for these machines being software related, as opposed to hardware related. I can install Debian on a 20 year old Athlon machine, build an assortment of different web browsers, and have a machine that's fully capable of chugging through my day to day stuff. The high end G3 and G4 processors shouldn't have much trouble keeping Pace with a Thunderbird, or Willamette chip, and G5's should be able to outclass them in most scenarios. A bounty program sounds interesting, and I'd definitely be willing to put my money where my mouth is.

 

[defjam]

It does. As well as hardware H264 decoding for QuickTime Player. Browsers may or may not be subject to that.

If you are using a Firefox-based browser, go to about:support and see for yourself.

What setting would I be checking? I recall someone having already mentioned GPU acceleration and I was willing to purchase a new GPU (mine has the the entry level GeForce FX 5200) but then further discussion led me to conclude it doesn't matter what GPU so I abandoned that.

I really have attempted to be fair to the PPC systems but it seems every time I try something there's some issue that crops up.

[ snip ]

So certainly, there is life yet in the platform. The only question is whether or not the end user is willing to dive in.

That was the point I was making in the previous thread and is the same point I am making in this thread. It's my opinion the OP isn't the type of person willing to dive in and therefore my recommendation was to go with something else. If the OP is willing to dive in my advice has done them no harm, they're free to ignore it.

 

[Dronecatcher]

At this point I'm done with it unless someone can recommend a one stop solution.

If double clicking 4 scripts in a folder and making a selection from a menu is too much hassle to bring a 15 year old machine some usability then it begs the question why did you bother in the first place?

 

[sparty411]

For starters, TenFourFox is gimped in a way most other browsers are not. Everything is entirely CPU bound, meaning TFF makes zero use of the GPU. Not accounting for the bloat and cruft TFF is already known for, this is a tremendous part of why browsing is so slow for you.

So, when you have a browser that does everything solely through the processor, and then you pile on 23 CPU-bound scripts that forums.macrumors.com alone requires to properly operate, you have a very disadvantageous situation that gives the false impression of the hardware being at fault, when it is in fact the software (OS, libraries, browser, websites) that is ruining performance.

I can't make this up:

View attachment 905457
View attachment 905458

Your 2009 Mini is running an operating system that supports GPU acceleration. Therefore, the CPU isn't busy with everything the browser alone demands, and it can instead focus on running the scripts themselves while the GPU deals with the rendering.

This is why @wicknix has demonstrated his Mac Mini G4 running Linux. When you bypass all of the artificial software restrictions, you get a very different experience that paints a different, more truthful picture of the hardware in question.

Therefore to answer your inquiry; yes, the software really is that bad.

I think the problem with hardware accelerated browsing in OSX boils down to very primitive graphics drivers. I can coax pretty decent hardware acceleration out of the same GPU's in our PPC computers, on Windows XP using Firefox 45.9.