Jump to content


Photo

iMac G4 700MHz - 10.4 or 10.5?


  • Please log in to reply
47 replies to this topic

#21 Unknown_K

Unknown_K
  • 68LC040
  • LocationOhio/USA

Posted 19 December 2016 - 10:01 PM

The only systems I run 10.5 on are G5's and then only the towers with dual processors and tons of RAM. G4 towers and Laptops plus Imac G5's get 10.4 because they fly with it and are limited to 2GB or less RAM.

 

If I had that G4-700 I would probably just run OS 9.2.2 and keep it off the internet (but use local networking). OSX 10.3 would probably run very well on it if you needed OSX.


Favorites: big box Mac IIs, 950, 800's
Wanted: Anything Nubus, Video capture and editing hardware and software for 68k mac. Original software including A/UX.
Looking for 9150, Mac II, Color classic, 840av motherboard, and Nubus cards.

#22 HFTaylor12

HFTaylor12
  • 6502
  • LocationCentral Michigan

Posted 19 December 2016 - 11:41 PM

I am NOT running OS 9. It's Tiger or Leopard for me. I really like TFF and I'd like to be able to sync my bookmarks via Firefox Sync. I'm not getting an Intel either. I don't normally like to upgrade something unless I absolutely need to (a few weeks ago, an iPhone 2G was my main iPhone. But I needed better web browsing, so I switched to a 3GS). I am determined to put this iMac to good use. This thread/topic if getting a little off-topic here... I just want to know if I should go with 10.4 or 10.5. And I'm going with 10.4, it looks like.


Power Mac G5 | iBook G4 | Mac mini G4 | iMac G4 | iBook G3 "Snow" | iBook G3 "Clamshell" | iMac 1.83GHz C2D


#23 Unknown_K

Unknown_K
  • 68LC040
  • LocationOhio/USA

Posted 19 December 2016 - 11:57 PM

OSX 10.4 then.

 

I am usually not in a hurry to upgrade either if what I have still works. For example I was still using a dumb phone (LG 500G had it for 5 years) with a small screen and a real keyboard until this week when I had to purchase a new phone (ZTE Paragon for $30) because service would stop. I rode out analog cell phones till the end of service as well.


Favorites: big box Mac IIs, 950, 800's
Wanted: Anything Nubus, Video capture and editing hardware and software for 68k mac. Original software including A/UX.
Looking for 9150, Mac II, Color classic, 840av motherboard, and Nubus cards.

#24 Cory5412

Cory5412

    Daring Pioneer of the Future

  • Administrators
  • LocationArizona, USA

Posted 20 December 2016 - 12:13 AM

Without considering security at all: web browsing, today, will not be a good use of a 700MHz G4 that only has 512MB of RAM. It just won't work well, and there are honestly loads of things you could do on that machine that it would be better at.

 

As with Unknown_K, I would be running 9.2.2 on there. At most, I would consider 10.3 on it, to recreate what I had in the early 2000s with my TiBook and blue-and-white G3, but I'd want something a lot faster to use 10.4 or 10.5 on. 9.2.2 though, will be fast enough to do some multitasking with simpler software, or to do some neat things with some of the higher end OS 9 software for technical computing, content creation, etc.

 

But, this thread has been running almost ten days as of this writing. You could have installed 9.2.2 alongside every version of OS X that will even run on this thing and given it a day or two of trial under your own proposed workload by now, so at this point, I'm not sure how productive any more responses to the thread will be, whether or not they are "on topic".

 

At this point, I would say that if your goal is to browse web sites, you "absolutely must" upgrade away from a 700MHz iMac G4. I don't think, compared to your G5, you'll notice 10.5 or 10.4 being appreciably faster. (And, like I said, it's been a few years since cell phone passed the G5 Quad in overall performance.)



#25 bunnspecial

bunnspecial
  • 6502

Posted 20 December 2016 - 12:16 AM

I've frequently been amused at what I see as absurdly high recommended specs for Leopard on this forum.

 

Leopard IS big on eye candy, but you can tone that back and it will really speed up things up if you are running on a marginal specs.

 

I have run Leopard on a B&W G3 with a G4 upgrade running at 350mhz. It's not the fastest in the world, but it does run. With the right GPU(in my case, a flashed PCI Geforce FX5200), you can even turn on the animations without really impacting the performance.

 

I think I've mentioned several times that I have a 700mhz eMac, and it runs Leopard very well.

 

Yes, a good G5-especially a Quad-flies with Leopard. I just transitioned one of my "main" computers to a dual 2.7 and it's quite fast also(I require PCI in this particular role, which is why I can't use a Quad).

 

On a tower, find a good core image GPU and things will really perk up. CI gpus can be had for any new world rom tower.

 

Why go to the trouble with low spec computers, you might ask? My primary reason is much better app availability.

 

I see little reason to run any version of OS X earlier than Tiger. It runs as fast as Panther, but again the app availability is significantly better. If I could not run Tiger, I would run OS 9(in fact I do in many cases).



#26 TheWhiteFalcon

TheWhiteFalcon
  • 68030
  • LocationArizona

Posted 20 December 2016 - 12:27 AM

Tiger or OS9 is my general recommendation as well.

Desktops: Cube, iMac G4, 128k, 512k/Plus, SE/30, IIsi, Q700 PVT. Laptops: 180, 3400c, Pismo, TiBook, iBook Clamshell, MBP 15", MBA 13", Unibody MB, '15 MBA13 Portables: MP 130, 2100, eMate.


#27 Cory5412

Cory5412

    Daring Pioneer of the Future

  • Administrators
  • LocationArizona, USA

Posted 20 December 2016 - 12:37 AM

I don't think Leopard will be the problem.

 

Just to reiterate -- modern web sites are, for better or worse, so difficult to render that I don't think it matter what software is on it, a 700MHz G4 will not work for the task at hand. And, I don't even think maxing the iMac to a full gig (1.5 gigs?) of RAM will make a meaningful difference.

 

And, between 9.2.2 and almost any version of OS X, everything else you want to do on the computer will likely run better on 9, just because of how much overhead there is to running 10.5. Not just over 10.4, but over OS 9.

 

You said you don't want to upgrade until it's necessary, but in this case, if you're browsing almost any mainstream web pages, it is absolutely necessary to be doing so on better hardware.

 

 

Speaking of off-topic...

 

Why go to the trouble with low spec computers, you might ask? My primary reason is much better app availability.

 

What do you mean by app availability?



#28 bunnspecial

bunnspecial
  • 6502

Posted 20 December 2016 - 01:24 AM


 

Speaking of off-topic...

 

 

What do you mean by app availability?

 

I guess I should have phrased it better, and what I mean is more up to date versions of some of the apps I rely on. As a specific example, one of my main PPC uses these days is for scanning film(which I still use a lot) and I have one SCSI scanner. For all practical purposes on NWR Macs, this means I need something with PCI slots(and for the kind of work I'm doing, OWR Macs are too slow). Even at that, tracking down a G5-compatible SCSI card wasn't exactly easy. I use VueScan, and Leopard allows me to run a more up to date version.

 

Even mainstream apps like iTunes are more up to date and retain reasonable compatibility with Apple in Leopard. Up until I stupidly upgraded to iOS 8, I could sync my iPhone 4s in Leopard.

 

For web browsing, we get Leopard Webkit. As much as I like TFF, Webkit is an all around faster browser.

 

Yes, Leopard cuts off classic mode. This doesn't affect me-I run Classic apps in OS 9, and have never liked classic mode.



#29 積 読

積 読

    教授か何か洗練された者

  • 6502
  • Location費府

Posted 20 December 2016 - 02:14 AM

I am NOT running OS 9. It's Tiger or Leopard for me. I really like TFF and I'd like to be able to sync my bookmarks via Firefox Sync. I'm not getting an Intel either. I don't normally like to upgrade something unless I absolutely need to (a few weeks ago, an iPhone 2G was my main iPhone. But I needed better web browsing, so I switched to a 3GS). I am determined to put this iMac to good use. This thread/topic if getting a little off-topic here... I just want to know if I should go with 10.4 or 10.5. And I'm going with 10.4, it looks like.


I looks like nobody else has directly, so I need to ask: are you viewing this machine as a hobby, or as a modern productive computer? Considering the hardware lineup listed in your signature and your mention of recently switching from an iPhone 2 to a 3GS, I'm beginning to suspect the latter. If that is the case, you're going to have a bad time regardless of what you run on it. Some people hate hearing this, but the machine is 15 years old. It is too old for some of the things you are asking of it. That doesn't mean you can't put it to good use; music and word processing are reasonable tasks for it, or something like the film scanning mentioned in a recent post. YouTube, however, is not, and the laundry list of security concerns involved in using this machine for the web has already been mentioned. Using any PowerPC as a daily driver is a bad idea, unless you're running Linux or BSD or you don't use the Internet. Just out of curiosity, what do you typically do on a computer, and what is your rationale for this particular hardware lineup?

As for the OS, I would run OS 9, because it would actually be good at running OS 9 (and it can do the music and word processing). If OS X is a requirement, I would probably try 10.5 first out of curiosity, because I never liked earlier versions, but 10.4 is going to be objectively better. There are reasons why Apple's system requirements are what they are.

As for the performance of PowerPC on OS X beyond the scope of this specific iMac, I thought 10.5 ran well, but I was running it on a dual 1.42GHz G4 system with 2GB RAM. I also retired it five years ago, so I might feel differently now if I pushed it, although I also know better than to throw something at it that will make it look bad. I may turn it on soon to rip some DVDs.

Crashing into the HSF Limitation Wall since 2015.


#30 Cory5412

Cory5412

    Daring Pioneer of the Future

  • Administrators
  • LocationArizona, USA

Posted 20 December 2016 - 03:48 PM

I think I may have read something wrong. I was definitely expecting a list of something that runs on OSX-PowerPC but not on any other type of Mac.

 

I guess I should have phrased it better, and what I mean is more up to date versions of some of the apps I rely on.

 

 

Leopard and the apps that run on it were relevant in 2008-2009, but I've never really had a good reason to stick with older versions of Mac OS X. Outside of a SCSI adapter to use an old film scanner(1), nothing there won't run on a newer Mac. For me, even Final Cut Studio 2 runs on my newer Mac mini with OS X Sierra.

 

I briefly entertained the notions of either a 10.6 Hackintosh or getting a late PPC system for it, but even with the very inefficient way Final Cut Pro 6 works with resources, the Mac mini is just faster than any G5 would be. What'll probably happen if 10.13 doesn't work is I'll make it a point to buy a new Mac desktop or laptop and drop the Mac mini back to 10.7-10.9 or so where Final Cut works just a little better, and keep it off the network, using TBolt/USB/SD disks to transfer project information.

 

 

(1) Most people doing this on modern Macs use high end flatbed scanners that include negative transparency adapters. At this point, flatbeds have such high resolution that you should easily be able to scan slides or negatives with no trouble. Though, there's nothing wrong with using an old machine to scan and then using a USB disk to transfer the data to newer computers.



#31 bunnspecial

bunnspecial
  • 6502

Posted 20 December 2016 - 04:35 PM

Having used both really nice flatbeds and dedicated film scanners, I can tell you that nothing beats a good dedicated film scanner except for a drum scanner.

 

You don't have much option outside a flatbed for large format, but for 35mm and medium format a real film scanner will give you better results. I would put 35mm scans from my Coolscan V up against any flatbed on the market. Granted the Coolscan is USB, but I have an old SCSI Polaroid scanner that can handle the oddball formats I sometimes use.

 

The big difference is in the quality of the negative carriers, not to mention optics optimized to only illuminate and work with the comparatively small area of film as opposed to the full scanning area. The negative carriers are actually a big deal, as outside wet mounts(which introduce their own problems) a purpose made film scanner will hold the film a lot more flat than even a good flatbed.

 

Once you've used both side by side, it's difficult to make an argument that flatbeds are better. It's not a matter of resolution, as 4000x4000 is now the standard and it's enough to grain resolve virtually all films, but just a matter of using a tool purpose-made for the job.



#32 Gorgonops

Gorgonops
  • Moderators

Posted 20 December 2016 - 05:33 PM

Old systems like these are a big risk on the Internet, because they're vulnerable to being used as part of a service amplification attacks, and because problems often go unfixed.(among other things, it has been discussed at length on this forum).

You are aware, of course, that you actually have to be running a DNS server to participate in an amplification attack? So far as I'm aware OS X doesn't do that unless you enable the server functions.



#33 Cory5412

Cory5412

    Daring Pioneer of the Future

  • Administrators
  • LocationArizona, USA

Posted 20 December 2016 - 05:56 PM

NTP was what I was originally looking for: https://blog.cloudfl...d-ddos-attacks/

 

It appears as though NTP amplification attacks can use both NTP clients and servers.



#34 Gorgonops

Gorgonops
  • Moderators

Posted 20 December 2016 - 06:12 PM

Outside of some *really hard to exploit* edge cases (IE, spoofed man-in-the-middle attacks) the only vulnerable clients are those that are themselves running an NTP daemon configured to reply to requests from other hosts, IE, a *server*. I don't have an OS X Tiger box sitting next to me to check but something tells me Apple didn't configure NTP that way... and, yes, according to a comment here Tiger out of the box restricted NTP connections to localhost just as is recommended here.

So, again, realistically, someone sitting at home, or even in a Starbucks, with a Tiger box is effectively a zero risk to the Internet unless they've intentionally turned off the firewall *and* specifically enabled services on their machine that are disabled by default.



#35 TheWhiteFalcon

TheWhiteFalcon
  • 68030
  • LocationArizona

Posted 20 December 2016 - 06:34 PM

And shutting off IPv6 is a trivial terminal command.

Desktops: Cube, iMac G4, 128k, 512k/Plus, SE/30, IIsi, Q700 PVT. Laptops: 180, 3400c, Pismo, TiBook, iBook Clamshell, MBP 15", MBA 13", Unibody MB, '15 MBA13 Portables: MP 130, 2100, eMate.


#36 IPalindromeI

IPalindromeI
  • 68000
  • Locationwhere pies go when they die

Posted 20 December 2016 - 06:36 PM

Quad G5s (and similar HW) are getting particularly anemic at the web, and those are by far the fastest PPC systems. I can't imagine a single 700 MHz G4 would be pleasant for browsing the web at all. I agree with the sentiment that you could appreciate the machine for what it's good at, and not trying to force it into things it can barely do. (Macs aren't the best choice for this scenario anyways - the ecosystem moves a lot quicker and it's not as flexible for these things.)

Also, upgrading /to/ a 3GS in 2016? Huh?
Neat stuff: MacMini1,1 (Core Solo), BlackBerry Q5 (daily driver), Nokia N900, Nokia N800, Asus P2B-D with dual Pentium II 450, 2x ThinkPad 701CS, ++more

#37 Cory5412

Cory5412

    Daring Pioneer of the Future

  • Administrators
  • LocationArizona, USA

Posted 20 December 2016 - 06:40 PM

Well, I'll be honest. I'm probably going to be doing a whole lot of forum searching, because I have not seen this information about reflection attacks needing a server.

 

Security is still a concern, but even if security is less of a concern than I had originally thought, it's worth noting that a 700MHz iMac G4 is going to be utterly unusable and unsuitable to the task of web browsing, regardless of how well Leopard does or doesn't run on it.

 

In truth, this forum isn't a good support group for people who want to use mid to late newworld PowerPC Macs as main computers, and it really never has been, nor will it be.
 

 

And shutting off IPv6 is a trivial terminal command.

 

Heck, it's a checkbox in sysprefs. It's well hidden, but not that well hidden.



#38 Gorgonops

Gorgonops
  • Moderators

Posted 20 December 2016 - 07:25 PM

Well, I'll be honest. I'm probably going to be doing a whole lot of forum searching, because I have not seen this information about reflection attacks needing a server.

 

All I can say is I just (once again) set Google on fire looking for some evidence that NTP *clients* were participating in reflection attacks and came up very blank; if a client host is set up according to NTP.org's standard client recommendations then you're not going to be DoS-ing anyone.

As noted there are, in theory at least, some vulnerabilities that could be used in a targeted attack *on* your box to attempt to wreak various sorts of havoc that are fixed by newer versions of the daemon, but to exploit them, again, would essentially require the attacker to either be a direct man-in-the-middle or have *excellent* timing in sending a packet spoofing itself as originating from time.apple.com. (And, as CHC noted in his blog, most of those would probably require an attack *specifically* targeting PowerPC.) If you're behind a stateful firewall the spoof attack is going to be especially hard to pull off.



#39 HFTaylor12

HFTaylor12
  • 6502
  • LocationCentral Michigan

Posted 20 December 2016 - 08:01 PM

Yes, I am planning to use this as a productive computer, ianj. As I said before, though, we have different views of "slow". I will try Tiger (sorry that I'm procrastinating so much). If I can load apple.com in 20 seconds I am happy. Web browsing is not my main use. Mainly music and word processing. I will not buy an Intel.

 

bunnspecial, I see that you are kind of recommending Leopard. As time goes on and Tiger gets more and more obsolete, I may upgrade it to Leopard. I'm hearing TFF might become Leopard-only soon, anyway. That would leave us with no good browser for Tiger. So, I could be upgrading to Leopard in the future


Power Mac G5 | iBook G4 | Mac mini G4 | iMac G4 | iBook G3 "Snow" | iBook G3 "Clamshell" | iMac 1.83GHz C2D


#40 積 読

積 読

    教授か何か洗練された者

  • 6502
  • Location費府

Posted 20 December 2016 - 09:06 PM

As I said before, though, we have different views of "slow". I will try Tiger (sorry that I'm procrastinating so much). If I can load apple.com in 20 seconds I am happy. Web browsing is not my main use. Mainly music and word processing.


One point people are trying to make here isn't just that it will be slow, but that it will likely either be unreliable or not work at all unless you are very strategic about which sites you visit. That's not out of the question; I keep Classilla on my OS 9 machines and occasionally use them to browse contemporary reference websites, but when I do I expect it to fall over at any moment if I follow a bad link and it gets redirected to a modern site. Aiming for YouTube won't be a good time.
 

I will not buy an Intel.


I hope this doesn't mean you are one of the religious types who hates x86 for sentimental reasons? Your signature implies that you already have one.

Crashing into the HSF Limitation Wall since 2015.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users