Powerbook G4 17"
in [UK Mac]
|
From: Ian Pooper on 7 Aug 2010 15:13 On Sat, 07 Aug 2010 16:31:03 +0100, Huge wrote: > On 07/08/2010 15:45, Peter Ceresole wrote: >> Jaimie Vandenbergh<jaimie(a)sometimes.sessile.org> wrote: >> >>>> Well of course it's sluggish. It's a G4. Adding RAM will maqke it a bit >>>> livelier, but really it's just putting lipstick on a pig. >>> >>> Heh. Someone got a new Intel box recently! >> >> But before that I had an iG5 (which is going to Geneva to do dialup, or >> slow ASDL-on demand) and that fairly flew compared to a G4. >> >> And yes, I have a InteliMac and Anne has a MBP, and they *really* are >> noticeably faster than my Macs were before. I'm not talking about >> numbers here, just about let's do this Ooooooooo! > > is there anyway i can emulate a intelprocessor? > Sheesh! Obviously, "Huge" does not refer to your I.Q. Can I emulate a Jaguar with my Vauxhall?
From: Rowland McDonnell on 8 Aug 2010 21:17 Richard Kettlewell <rjk(a)greenend.org.uk> wrote: > Huge <hugeone12nospam(a)britishtelecominternetdotcom> writes: > > Peter Ceresole wrote: > >> Jaimie Vandenbergh<jaimie(a)sometimes.sessile.org> wrote: > > >>>> Well of course it's sluggish. It's a G4. Adding RAM will maqke it a bit > >>>> livelier, but really it's just putting lipstick on a pig. > >>> > >>> Heh. Someone got a new Intel box recently! > >> > >> But before that I had an iG5 (which is going to Geneva to do dialup, or > >> slow ASDL-on demand) and that fairly flew compared to a G4. > >> > >> And yes, I have a InteliMac and Anne has a MBP, and they *really* are > >> noticeably faster than my Macs were before. I'm not talking about > >> numbers here, just about let's do this Ooooooooo! > > > > is there anyway i can emulate a intelprocessor? > > Not at a reasonable speed. <cough> A G4 can emulate an Intel 4004 massively more quickly than the original can execute code. /Which/ Intel CPU are you thinking of? Back in the olden days, there was Soft Windows which let Macs run Windoze. PPC only, IIRC - it worked out dog slow (yes, I did try it out on a few occasions), but if you can find a copy you might be able to run obsolete Windoze on an obsolete emulated Intel CPU at a decent pace on a G4. For whatever it'd be worth... Rowland. -- Remove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell(a)dog.physics.org Sorry - the spam got to me http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking
From: Rowland McDonnell on 8 Aug 2010 21:29
Jaimie Vandenbergh <jaimie(a)sometimes.sessile.org> wrote: > peter(a)cara.demon.co.uk (Peter Ceresole) wrote: > > >Jaimie Vandenbergh <jaimie(a)sometimes.sessile.org> wrote: > > > >> >Also is 1gb ram ok for leopard? it seems to be a bit sluggish > >> > >> Put in as much as you can. 1gig is tight, anything over 1.5gig is > >> fine. > > > >Well of course it's sluggish. It's a G4. Adding RAM will maqke it a bit > >livelier, but really it's just putting lipstick on a pig. > > Heh. Someone got a new Intel box recently! My new 3.06GHz C2D Intel box has less snappy than the 2.5GHz 4G5 it replaced. > It's a shame Snow Leopard isn't compiled for PPC, that's faster than > Leopard on the same hardware. MacOS 7.6 is quicker than System 7.5.5 - in part because Apple dropped support for the non-32 bit clean Macs, and so could make it all much more CPU efficient (but slap in some more RAM: you'll need it). I suspect something similar is going on with MacOS X 10.6. btw, run nothing less than MacOS 7.6.1 on a PPC. Prior to that, any error in PPC code caused a Type 11 error which requires an immediate forced reboot with no chance to save anything. If you can run 7.6, don't run 7.5.5 if you can avoid it. Really. 7.1 is almost as useful at 7.5.5, if you add various bolt-on goodies (standard fitments from Apple). Rowland. -- Remove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell(a)dog.physics.org Sorry - the spam got to me http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking |