Yeah, it's a bit like saying we can run Leopard on G3s because the early betas still run on them. Fine, but what benefit does that realistically provide us with? It's still a cool academic exercise.
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.
Well... I screwed up my PBG4 DLSD
- Thread starter JoyBed
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Fun?
I mean, it might get around some artifical barriers put in place by apps that require at least 10.6 but can actually run on earlier. I could also easily see the benefit of more up-to-date features in some areas. I see it as primarily a fun endeavor to see just how far we can go with our beloved PPC systems though.
Oh come on - why is it so difficult for some people to just say, "I stand corrected - I was wrong" - no one will think any less of you.
If this is true and not some elaborate spoofing, then Snow Leopard in any iteration at all running on PPC is an eyeopener as previously it was thought impossible or rather, more accurately, unlikely to have happened.
It matters not about any practical application of such knowledge, it's just an indicator to everyone who dogmatically says, "no, never, impossible..."
Exactly! If nothing else, it's something fun to play with.
Hi all,
Maybe newer iTunes / IOS / IPhone support?
This would be a biggie
Also if the frameworks are there wicknix can build ArcticFox PPC for 10.6
Best regards,
voidRunner
Maybe newer iTunes / IOS / IPhone support?
This would be a biggie
Also if the frameworks are there wicknix can build ArcticFox PPC for 10.6
Best regards,
voidRunner
..That's literally what you were arguing with me about earlier though. I said, earlier builds had some PowerPC code in it. I also said that they are closer to Leopard.
Are there even reasons to use a PPC Mac at all? Why are you in this forum?
And for the record, no one is "really mad". Just sick of people commenting rude useless material that doesn't add anything to the conversation other than negativity. My comment above was not meant to antagonize you. My apologies if you took it as such.
Aside from "It's impossible", most of what you said is true and no one was denying that. But again I ask, why are you here? We do things like this because it's fun. Why does Mr. Kaiser maintain tenfourfox? Isn't Tiger just as useless?
I meant getting OS 9 to natively allow full internet access with the latest security - really I am against security unless it’s banks or sensitive info - http mainly and not https ??? Why https fir Wikipedia ??? OS 9 should be able to do most sites.
You know what's messed up when you think about it? Windows XP was released Oct 25, 2001. Close to when Mac OS X was. Mac OS 9, was released almost exactly two years earlier on Oct 23, 1999.
I set up a Windows XP box last week for fun. First time I've used XP in years. It is 100% usable. Updated browsers exist, most applications anyone would really need work on it. Windows XP is almost as old as Mac OS 9, but yet it's capable of doing things that seem impossible on OS 9. Taking preemptive multitasking out of consideration, this is solely due to the fact that XP was supported by devs for so long.
Hell, XP is easier to use today than Snow Leopard which was released the same time as Windows 7!
@Project Alice - Comparing os9 to XP is comparing apples to oranges IMHO. XP had full official support until 2014 and you could get updates (meant for posready) until last year. Compare os9 to, say, win98se (supported until 2006 iirc) and matters start looking similar.
I don't think I was wrong because when I said 10.6 I didn't mean the betas, which are basically just 10.5. It is definitely interesting to see 10.6 running on PPC though, proves that 10.6 was originally going to support PowerPC or they just hadn't decided yet.
That's affirming everything I just said. Mac OS 9 would be in the same place if Apple, or even private devs would've continued supporting it. Look at the release dates. There's a two year difference.
Even if I were to agree with you, Windows 98 SE is also fairly capable. It can be coaxed into running some applications meant for XP.
Touché, there's KernelEx. Ok, let's compare os9 to win95 in terms of support. Dropped ages ago (2001?), no updated browsers, no KernelEx.
Last edited:
Maybe in the UI yes. I mean even 10.6.8 has little difference in usability on an x86 machine than leopard does.
However, Leopard is still Darwin 9.8 and Snow Leopard regardless of how early the build is, is Darwin 10.0.
Also if the frameworks are there wicknix can build ArcticFox PPC for 10.6
I'm just going to quote this here because that is one good reason for running pseudo SL on PPC iron if it makes AF a possibility.
Haha, "reason". Good one. What´s the reason to i.e. run TenFourFox or TenSixFox on obsolete hardware? Because we can. ;-)
No, the OP was stating that that 2GB was an OS X software limit. It isn't, plainly. As later PPC chips can use more than 2GB in OS X, even going back to 10.2.x.
But it also isnt a limit of the hardware. The hardware is wired to access 4GB and also the OF sees all the 4GB it jist doesnt alocate all the 4GB just 2GB.
If you read the full thread he wasn't - he was asking, seeing as the hardware is apparently capable of driving 4Gb RAM, what is placing the restriction on the Powerbook to 2Gb. It was never a blanket statement of OSX has a 2Gb RAM limit.
"Reason". Hm. Exploration? Curiosity?
Ok. What about XCode 3.2.x running on PPC? That´s a world first, I´d suspect. Bravo, @vddrnnr !
Hi jmilan0302,
I think that for almost everyone in this forum getting SL on PPC hardware
and maybe "most" of the software that came just after the transition from Leopard to SL
IMHO has been the holy grail for PPC enthusiasts.
This along with @JoyBed's work is the best chance we have to get there especially
with the "doors" this may open because of the "optimizations" that went into SL
and were not in Leopard and also "completely" new software.
Right now from some tests I did on my Powermac I have the "feeling" it was speedier than 10.5.8.
The test I did which grabbed my attention was that playing a video in youtube at 480p
was using less than 50% of the CPU while at reduced performance.
I have to test it better to be sure ;-) .
Also @Larsvonhier's SL server install has been running for 24h straight without a
hitch so it seems to be a DP that has very good stability/functionality.
I for one will continue to help if possible to make this "prospect" turn into reality
Best regards,
voidRunner
I think that for almost everyone in this forum getting SL on PPC hardware
and maybe "most" of the software that came just after the transition from Leopard to SL
IMHO has been the holy grail for PPC enthusiasts.
This along with @JoyBed's work is the best chance we have to get there especially
with the "doors" this may open because of the "optimizations" that went into SL
and were not in Leopard and also "completely" new software.
Right now from some tests I did on my Powermac I have the "feeling" it was speedier than 10.5.8.
The test I did which grabbed my attention was that playing a video in youtube at 480p
was using less than 50% of the CPU while at reduced performance.
I have to test it better to be sure ;-) .
Also @Larsvonhier's SL server install has been running for 24h straight without a
hitch so it seems to be a DP that has very good stability/functionality.
I for one will continue to help if possible to make this "prospect" turn into reality
Best regards,
voidRunner
Well, you'd have a newer toolchain, which makes building modern software easier.
Nah, just follow the higher road and take the L, @jmilan0302.
You expressed an opinion based on conjecture. That conjecture was incorrect. Moving the goalposts afterwards by arguing that the DP doesn’t count as a “true” Snow Leopard build is a malformed take.
At a quick glance before me, this early 10.6DP build already features a noticeably smaller drive space footprint, and this footprint would eventually become smaller as 10.6 reached golden master and Carbonized applications from Leopard were steadily re-written in Cocoa. Quite a bit of work in this 10.6DP release had already been devoted by this point, based on my initial use.
Let’s move on.
I feel like this is a rookie question for me to ask, but have you tinkered with the maxmem nvram setting, vis-à-vis ' nvram boot-args="maxmem=4" ', where '4' denotes 4GB?