Running Panther on a BW G3 350 MHz painful?
I tried it out just to see how well it would run, expecting the worse. To my surprise, it runs rather well. Too well, actually. As in, I just cannot reconcile how it is possible for it to run this well. I would have absolutely no issues using this setup. Aside from screensavers and subtly scaled down visual effects, the responsiveness is damn near equivalent to my iBook G4 800 MHz (with maxed out RAM). I would go so far as to say that the BW may actually be a bit snappier, being unburdened from supporting the fancier UI tweaks.
My question is, how can it be that over 100% more MHz, altivec acceleration, almost 100% more RAM, fancy DDR memory (vs. ridiculously ancient PC100), and a videocard that is 3 generations more advanced can't do anything than blow my BW away when it comes to running Panther? I'm not trying to brag at all about my old, old machine. I'm just awestruck at how tiny the performance gulf is. I still get the AA, the fancy window swooshes minimizing to the dock, smooth icon magnifications in the dock- everything is generally still "lickable". The only obvious things missing are the high-quality crossfades between desktop wallpapers (though I think the screensaver image crossfades are still intact), and a particular screensaver module that utilizes bumpmapping with the "searchlights".
I don't know if it is a tribute to good software development that Panther runs this well on ancient hardware, or how can it be that 1996 hardware can seem remotely close to 2003 hardware when running a heavy duty OS? The only thing really in the BW's favor in this setup is a harddrive that manages sub-30 MB/s kinds of data throughput (maybe even more if it weren't for the ATA33 level IDE interface of the computer) vs. the sub-10 MB/s harddrive in the iBook.
I know it isn't exactly realistic, but something makes me wonder if it were possible to "turn-off" Quartz extreme on my iBook, all that hardware resource would be unleashed and OSX would run with all the docility and lag-free-ness of faithful ole OS9... Yeah, I know that is crazy talk, but it just seems like all this resource is being bled away somewhere just to make the UI 5% more fancy. Anybody else notice this or have some input on the matter?
Also, does anybody know why target firewire mode runs like a banshee, but IP over firewire (networked mode) over that same cable is doddling along at maybe 1 MB/s or so? ...or is there some other setting between my 2 networked computers that needs tweaking?
My question is, how can it be that over 100% more MHz, altivec acceleration, almost 100% more RAM, fancy DDR memory (vs. ridiculously ancient PC100), and a videocard that is 3 generations more advanced can't do anything than blow my BW away when it comes to running Panther? I'm not trying to brag at all about my old, old machine. I'm just awestruck at how tiny the performance gulf is. I still get the AA, the fancy window swooshes minimizing to the dock, smooth icon magnifications in the dock- everything is generally still "lickable". The only obvious things missing are the high-quality crossfades between desktop wallpapers (though I think the screensaver image crossfades are still intact), and a particular screensaver module that utilizes bumpmapping with the "searchlights".
I don't know if it is a tribute to good software development that Panther runs this well on ancient hardware, or how can it be that 1996 hardware can seem remotely close to 2003 hardware when running a heavy duty OS? The only thing really in the BW's favor in this setup is a harddrive that manages sub-30 MB/s kinds of data throughput (maybe even more if it weren't for the ATA33 level IDE interface of the computer) vs. the sub-10 MB/s harddrive in the iBook.
I know it isn't exactly realistic, but something makes me wonder if it were possible to "turn-off" Quartz extreme on my iBook, all that hardware resource would be unleashed and OSX would run with all the docility and lag-free-ness of faithful ole OS9... Yeah, I know that is crazy talk, but it just seems like all this resource is being bled away somewhere just to make the UI 5% more fancy. Anybody else notice this or have some input on the matter?
Also, does anybody know why target firewire mode runs like a banshee, but IP over firewire (networked mode) over that same cable is doddling along at maybe 1 MB/s or so? ...or is there some other setting between my 2 networked computers that needs tweaking?
Comments
So that brings to question, just how much does OSX really lean on those fancy things such as Altivec and special GPU functions? From a layman's point-of-view, it seems very little in actuality, or perhaps to the degree of very subtle visual refinements. In a way, this is good (suggesting very lean and clean programming- not sloppy or bloated), but at the same time, where is all this hubbub coming from about how OSX is optimized to really take advantage of these fancy computing gizmetry (namely Altivec and 3D GPU-assist operations). I guess I am curious to know specifically what sort of fancy things this Quartz Extreme really makes possible? How pervasive is it really? ..or is it really still in a state of implemental infancy in actuality, where the far, far more intensive stuff is planned in the future?
I realize marketing tech specs aren't stone cold reliable by any means, but why isn't this "sub-par-ness" even lightly suggested by the numbers? 133 Mhz memory bus, DDR memory goodness, and I would think the disk controller is at least ATA-66 level, no? So where is there room in those specs for "bad" performance? (not calling you out- just addressing anyone, in general, for their thoughts)
The only thing that sticks out is the slower, laptop style HD (which really isn't all that "slow" by even Yosemite-era standards). As an aside, I should cite that moving files off the HD to an external drive through USB2 is fricken smokin' (far more than I have ever witnessed my BW ever doing), so I am not so convinced it is the HD that is particularly bottlenecking things. ...but all that should matter very little as it is ground into our heads that OSX will use all of your RAM to cache stuff you are working on, right? So if my iBook RAM capacity is max'd out, and OSX is making good use of all of it, then how does it end up with all of these RAM cache misses just running the UI as you work? It just doesn't "add up", imo! (not that I am expecting an answer on this from anybody- this is more of a rant, at this point )
Dobby.
FWIW, I have Panther Server running on a 350MHz B/W and it does just jimdandy.
Originally posted by Randycat99
like why even bother with the sound effect if it is going to come that late, right?
Do you wonder why a haxie is needed?
I can only assume that it would be anything but worse with 50 more MHz and a later OS.
Originally posted by Xool
Do you wonder why a haxie is needed?
Right, because adding another layer of code and possible security holes/bugs is going to make it faster and better behaved.
Anything special of note wrt how OSX does this so well?
Originally posted by Kickaha
...
FWIW, I have Panther Server running on a 350MHz B/W and it does just jimdandy.
This funky 350MHz B/W is your true madeleine, isn't it?