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.
PowerPC G5 - very bad during browser usage
- Thread starter JackHS
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
But you haven't. You came to the forum, asked, people have happily replied - my LWK answer being the most recent but you always find a gotcha to defend your negative opinion - in this case deflecting my LWK answer by saying what a hassle TFF plus uMatrix is.
Why not try what I suggested, see if it works and then report if it's a terrible solution?
That's precisely the problem. When I asked I was told to use LWK. I did and reported back that it was unstable. The feedback I got? The person recommending it stated LWK is unstable. No did you do x, y, and z? Just an affirmation my experience was not unique and that is just the way it is. Now you're telling me I should run script x, y, and z (I think there were three of them) and set my UA to IE 9 (or is that one of the scripts, can't recall).
Same with TFF. I downloaded Erics configuration settings and installed them. Wasn't that helpful. Then I'm told well you really need to download browser plugin x or y. So I decide to do that. But I can't find them so I come back here saying where can I find plugin x or y. To which I'm given a URL. I download and install x and things have significantly improved. But that's because it's essentially blocking all JS (by default). When I experience a problem with a certain site I'm told I need to use the plugin to selectively enable a, b, c, d, or e (or some combination depending on the site requirements). Needless to say I ended up wasting time trying to post something on the site before discovering plugin x was blocking a necessary feature of the site.
We're also discussing whether OS X Leopard supports GPU acceleration for JS. Some say yes, others say no. I'm told to check "about:config" but not which setting out of the myriad of settings to check.
It's like peeling an onion. I do something, there's a problem, then I'm told well, you need to do something something something else too. It seems to be never ending.
Meanwhile with the Mini I installed El Capitain, fired up Safari (or the latest version of FF), and off I went. I had to do nothing more. The only issue I encountered was installing El Capitain because the signing certificate had expired. That was easily solved by changing the date on the system back to when it was valid. Other than that it was hassle free.
Now, I'm willing to give it one more change. Please tell me exactly and everything I need to do to properly configure LWK and I will do it.
But the Mac Mini/El Capitan aren't relevant - everyone knows an Intel machine with a more modern OS are an easier ride.
Fair point - lots of advice from different corners, from different users with different experiences and with different preferences...not much you can do about that really.
Regarding LWK, yes it can be unstable and generally is but so far on my latest install on my Powerbook it's been fine with:
1) activating all the scripts in the package (only needed to do once)
2) selecting from the menu Develop/User Agent/Internet Explorer 9
3) if a site doesn't do as expected Develop/User Agent/Default
Last edited:
Which is exactly my point!
There is, I can discard it and use a solution which doesn't require all the "voodoo".
Then why would I want to use it? The fact the scripts may make it less unstable isn't a selling point for using it. I'll give it a try but this statement doesn't leave me with much confidence. Plus, what issue will I be encountering by having applied them?
Mainly, you would be checking for the GPU Accelerated Windows box. If the graphics card is currently leveraged, it should say something to the order of 1/1.
It is my personal opinion that Erik's tweaks are not as far reaching as they could be. However, he should not be faulted for that. He only made the tweaks in the first place in order to make his own browsing style as smooth as possible, then merely shared his findings with everyone else. There's nothing wrong with that at all, but when people believe that said tweaks are something they're not, they set themselves up for disappointment.
Try as it might, TenFourFox will never be a speed demon because it lacks the foundational tools to do so, even on the most powerful Quad. Hence the rise in interest for alternative operating systems.
I hope I cleared some confusion there.
I told you to check about:support, which has a far simpler interface than about:config. And I thought that by simply going off of my screenshot, you would have known where to look.
Then that begs the question: Why are the changes they make not the default and therefore part of the standard distribution?
Some people might prefer/use Topsite previews.
Not every system receives a performance gain from disabling iPv6.
Updated certificates and advanced features - I don't know why they aren't automatically activated by default.
[automerge]1586739617[/automerge]
Typically things aren't enabled by default because doing so tends to cause issues. Issues which are deemed to be more of a problem then the issues they resolve.
I would guess the advanced features and updated certificates may disguise that fact that the hardware is not up to the task of rendering a particular website and can cause problems - that's why I favour an older UA so the website doesn't leverage any 'features' that tax PPC hardware. Youtube is a case in point, the IE9 UA drastically increases load/rendering time.
BTW You've now replied 3 times negatively to 'the fix' before even trying it - that kind of predetermines the outcome I suspect....
I already stated I'll most likely be trying it tomorrow sometime. In the meantime I have to question statements you've made.
For instance I said that LWK was unstable and crash prone (something supported by another who recommended I use it). You responded with "Did you apply the three scripts? They make LWK more stable". Then you go on to say "...yes it can be unstable and generally is...". Those are two contradictory statements. You were the one who set the tone for LWK being unstable even after the scripts were applied. As for the second statement regarding the side effects it has been my experience the recommendations always have some downside. Not only is LWK no longer under development but one has to wonder why features, which you say have no downside:
Then you go on to name some potential downsides. You're providing advice and then contradicting it. This is one of the issues I have with trying to browse the web with a PPC. I'm given conflicting advice.
It was made a sticky because it was 2015 and nothing else in its caliber existed yet.
That's incorrect. It remains the only actively developed browser for OS X Tiger / Leopard, two excruciatingly limited operating system platforms.
For PowerPC Linux alone, there remains Arctic Fox (Pale Moon), SpiderWeb (XUL), InterWeb (Basilisk), Firefox 7x, Firefox ESR 68, GNOME Web, Midori, NetSurf, Links, and Surf, all just off the top of my head.
You concluded that the PowerPC platform, meaning everything containing anything from a 601 to 970 chip, was simply unusable in 2020. I acknowledged the obvious and concluded that the only alive and independent browser for Tiger and Leopard, them included, were all platforms with dead ends.
These are two vastly different conclusions.
47 pages of debate in, and we're still discussing what this hypothetical average user might do.
A comedy show...
You can browse the Web perfectly fine on a PPC as long as you know what you're doing. Objectively speaking, this should be something that makes you have issues with being given advice in general. It all has the potential to conflict.
I see you are employing the same tactics as you did in the last thread by misquoting me.
This is what I said and can easily be found in my comments:
"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.)"
"Regarding LWK, yes it can be unstable and generally is but so far on my latest install on my Powerbook it's been fine with:
1) activating all the scripts in the package (only needed to do once)
2) selecting from the menu Develop/User Agent/Internet Explorer 9
3) if a site doesn't do as expected Develop/User Agent/Default"
Both quotes are easy to understand and not at all contradictory - reply if you must but I'm blocking you now as I'm not a masochist.
[automerge]1586742628[/automerge]
Same here - quite mad at myself but reasoning seems to be pointless.
Last edited:
Then maybe it should no longer be a sticky. Until such time it remains an authorative source for those who comes across this forum.
Stop! Just stop with pedanticism. I think it's very clear that this discussion is regarding PPC based Macintosh systems (and, I guess I need to further clarify: Those running OS X). My God I would have hoped that context would be relevant.
It is, it really is. Why people in this forum cannot concede that the average user (they're not hypothetical but very real) doesn't want to have to be this involved simply to browse the web.
All the advice given, thus far, has been handed out piece meal and / or has downsides. I have not seen one single recommendation that doesn't have a downside. Meanwhile the low cost Intel Macintosh solutions have little, if any, downsides. That's what the average user wants. Participants in this forum are not the average user so I would appreciate it if they could acknowledge as much.
That said I fired up the PowerMac G5 and, as you stated, GPU acceleration is not enabled (apparently due to the OS). To many this would seem to favor the Intel solution. I also fired up the Mini and GPU acceleration appears to be enabled. I did download a copy of OS X Leopard 10.5.6 and will install it tomorrow and test again with FF (I do not believe TFF supports Intel systems).
[automerge]1586743750[/automerge]
Oh please! You want this to be a discussion and not bickering? Then please stop with the passive aggressive accusations.
Did you or did you not say:
in your response to my question:
Then did you not go on to say:
In response to my statement:
That explanation of yours is a direct contradiction to your earlier statement. That latter statement was clearly attempting to explain why the scripts aren't enabled by default by theorizing on some possible downsides.
So can you please stop with the accusations that I'm misrepresenting what you're saying?
Last edited:
Update on this. I have installed Leopard 10.5.8 and Firefox 16.0.2 (the latest version supported on Leopard) on the Mini. Aside from all the updates to the OS both are set to their defaults. I am typing this response on it. I have checked the GPU setting and, as expected, it is not enabled. This is inline with TFF on the PowerMac G5 under Leopard.
Having said that this Mini absolutely flies compared to my PowerMac G5. What the G5 struggles with the Mini takes in stride. Activity monitor shows very little CPU use. As I expected, lack GPU acceleration is not the issue, at least not when it comes to merely viewing web pages (though I expect it has benefits in multimedia content, as you stated above).
I can't say this is an apples to apples comparison as this version of FF is severely outdated and has issues properly rendering some pages. It's useable but, unless there are extenuating circumstances, I would recommend against using it (or the version of Safari that comes with the OS) so it's probably a moot point. One can run much later versions, all the way to current, by upgrading the operating system.
I have no explanation as to why the G5 struggles so much. It does appear JS is the culprit but that doesn't explain why the G5 struggles and the Mini does not. It's puzzling. I wouldn't think the Core 2 Duo processor in the Mini is that much faster than a G5. Either the software is really poorly optimized for the G5 or the Mini's processor is much faster. At least when it comes to web browsing.
There's long been a suspicion that Leopard was optimized for Intel processors, PowerPC being an afterthought.
That being said, try not only the fact that your G5 is a single processor clocked at 1.8 GHz (your Mini is a dual core clocked at 2+ GHz), but that it's also running a massively bloated Frankenstein Firefox 45, and the Mini is on a version of Firefox before it was loaded to the hilt with features and background services nobody wanted.
Testing this on the G5 would prove for a fairer comparison. Delete your preexisting TFF profile before you launch it.
Last edited:
@defjam
OSX Leopard was well optimised for the Intel system in both low level system and memory architecture rather than with the PowerPC architecture and was a well-known fact when Leopard came out. Which was why I stuck with Tiger with my PPC systems and did Tiger installs for PPC machines that we sold when I was working in IT with a computer recycling organization, unless ofcourse there is a need for someone to run PPC applications that are optimised for Leopard.
OSX Leopard was well optimised for the Intel system in both low level system and memory architecture rather than with the PowerPC architecture and was a well-known fact when Leopard came out. Which was why I stuck with Tiger with my PPC systems and did Tiger installs for PPC machines that we sold when I was working in IT with a computer recycling organization, unless ofcourse there is a need for someone to run PPC applications that are optimised for Leopard.
Judge for yourself.
Leopard Is Faster than Tiger on Intel, Slower on PowerPC, and Possible Below 867 MHz - Low End Mac
2007 – Primate Labs picked up a copy of OS X Leopard and posted the first Geekbench results for the iMac (2.0 GHz Core 2) and Power Mac G5 (single 1.6 GHz) on Saturday. Leopard was tested in both 32-bit and 64-bit modes and compared with OS X 10.4 Tiger, which is strictly a 32-bit operating […]
lowendmac.com
In my experience with years working with both Tiger and Leopard (I also have a copy of Leopard Server X) that Tiger is much faster than Leopard unless you need certain features of what Leopard can offer. Otherwise, Tiger offers better speed on most PPC systems and the OS 9 support is a plus of course for legacy apps.
Perhaps and if that's the case that's not an argument in favor of PPC.
A few things:
- Until a few months ago I used to have a dual 2.3GHz PowerMac G5. The browsing experience was slightly better than the single 1.8GHz PowerMac G5 but not by much. The Mini (dual core 2.0GHz) handily trounces the dual 2.3GHz G5 system. It's not even close.
- Many have said single processor G3 and especially G4 systems provide acceptable web browsing experiences. If my single 1.8GHz G5 can't then how can they?
- The Mini, running El Capitain, has no problem running the latest version of Firefox (in its default state, nothing changed).
No more testing. I think I've given the Macintosh PPC platform more than its fair share and have gone well beyond what I would consider reasonable for the average user. I've grown tired of testing as it seems like every recommendation either doesn't deliver or delivers with some caveat. I have no doubt that PPC Macintosh systems can be used to browse the web and do so with tolerable performance. However doing so appears to be with downsides. The evidence is clear: Barring some unique circumstance a low cost Intel based Macintosh system easily provides a better browsing experience than a PPC based Macintosh.
[automerge]1586818537[/automerge]
Can you cite an authoritative source for this? I remember when the transition occurred and I do not recall hearing anything to this effect. Even if true is it really that significant of a difference? Finally, if true, isn't that an argument in favor of the Intel based systems?
Last edited:
defjam's input in the ppc forum can be summarized by the following: don't use a ppc, go and buy an intel based system.
Of course a newer intel based system will be faster. But if we all did what defjam suggests, what would be the point of the ppc forum? Or any other enthusiast forums/platform for that mater. What would happen to retro computing? Perhaps we could apply his/her thinking to other subjects. Your car doesn't have a touch screen, buy a new one. You want to fix your 1967 Saab 93, it's junk - go buy a new car. Why support an alternative to the Android/iOS duopoly by buying an alternative phone like a pinephone. It won't have the latest and greatest cpu/graphic. Go buy the Samsung S3bill11ons.
When a person take the time to register on the ppc forum, an enthusiast driven, dare I say retro computing forum, to ask a question, you render them and all the members a disservice telling us to go buy a newer computer.
As wicknix said, just ignore defjam and move on.
Posted from a 12" powerbook running 10.4.
Of course a newer intel based system will be faster. But if we all did what defjam suggests, what would be the point of the ppc forum? Or any other enthusiast forums/platform for that mater. What would happen to retro computing? Perhaps we could apply his/her thinking to other subjects. Your car doesn't have a touch screen, buy a new one. You want to fix your 1967 Saab 93, it's junk - go buy a new car. Why support an alternative to the Android/iOS duopoly by buying an alternative phone like a pinephone. It won't have the latest and greatest cpu/graphic. Go buy the Samsung S3bill11ons.
When a person take the time to register on the ppc forum, an enthusiast driven, dare I say retro computing forum, to ask a question, you render them and all the members a disservice telling us to go buy a newer computer.
As wicknix said, just ignore defjam and move on.
Posted from a 12" powerbook running 10.4.
To be fair, a few of the browsers you mentioned for PPC Linux don't even work lol. Midori is borked, surf is borked, and Gnome Web is borked (no functional webkit last time I checked), and none of them have JIT. Let's not kid ourselves, the software support for these things is pretty damn terrible. I can count the number of people developing useful software for this platform on one hand. If we want software fixes and ports, we're going to need to do a bounty program or something. I'm willing to pay up if others are as well. This is a platform worth saving.
Edit: Actually, I forgot @q66_ fixed webkit on Void. To my knowledge, it's still broken on Debian, though.
Last edited:
I have made no such argument. I have never attempted to sway anyone here, enthusiasts, those with unique PPC requirements, or those who are just interested in the PPC platform to avoid them. My point, which I made to one person: The OP, is they would likely be better off with an early Intel based system. If the OP falls into one of the former categories then they're free to ignore my advice...I won't be offended.
Nothing wrong with retro computing. I'm a big fan of it myself:
From left to right:
- Dual floppy Mac SE
- Mac SE/30
- Mac 128K (original, doesn't even have the 128K sticker...just says Macintosh)
- Mac 512K
- Mac SE
- Mac SE
- Mac SE/30 inside a Mac SE case
- Mac SE
To characterize me as someone who dislikes older computers would be a huge mistake. However, despite my like of and enthusiasm for older computers I do recognize they're not for the average user. That seems to be a concept which escapes most who have participated in these discussions.