Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Software - Troubleshooting and Discussion > macOS > performance of Leapord on Core Duo MBP

performance of Leapord on Core Duo MBP
Thread Tools
quattrokid73
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Huntingdon Valley, PA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 25, 2006, 08:27 PM
 
I have a 2.16ghz Core Duo MBP with 2gb ram and I am wondering if since Leapord is 64bit, should I expect worse, equal, or better overall computer performance with the new OS. I am currently running osx 10.4.8. I planned on reformatting with leapord once it came out....

thanks, adam
     
Horsepoo!!!
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 25, 2006, 09:32 PM
 
Originally Posted by quattrokid73 View Post
I have a 2.16ghz Core Duo MBP with 2gb ram and I am wondering if since Leapord is 64bit, should I expect worse, equal, or better overall computer performance with the new OS. I am currently running osx 10.4.8. I planned on reformatting with leapord once it came out....

thanks, adam
Better...

The single reason is that OS X for Intel is probably not as optimized as it should be and will probably see a steady stream of optimizations like OS X for PPC did between 10.0 and 10.4. Leopard being 64-bit will make no difference since it will also be 32-bit and will run 32-bit on your Core Duo. That aspect won't change.
     
Catfish_Man
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 25, 2006, 10:18 PM
 
Leopard should be overall faster on all Macs.
     
mikemako
Senior User
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Hollywood, Ca
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 25, 2006, 10:24 PM
 
Originally Posted by Horsepoo!!! View Post
Better...

The single reason is that OS X for Intel is probably not as optimized as it should be and will probably see a steady stream of optimizations like OS X for PPC did between 10.0 and 10.4. Leopard being 64-bit will make no difference since it will also be 32-bit and will run 32-bit on your Core Duo. That aspect won't change.
Agreed. This is going to be the first significant upgrade of Mac OS X since Apple officially switched to Intel. If they're placing priority on optimizing for a specific architecture, you can bet it'll be for Intel-based Macs.
My Computer: MacBook Pro 2GHz, Mac OS X 10.4.5
     
mduell
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 25, 2006, 10:24 PM
 
I doubt you'll see much change. 10.3->10.4 didn't show much of a performance improvement (10.0->10.1->10.2->10.3 did), even with more memory (which 10.4 definitely needs).

Then again, maybe they can pull something of the compiler if they're using icc.
     
TETENAL
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: FFM
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 25, 2006, 10:36 PM
 
Originally Posted by quattrokid73 View Post
I have a 2.16ghz Core Duo MBP with 2gb ram and I am wondering if since Leapord is 64bit, should I expect worse, equal, or better overall computer performance with the new OS.
You'll be running a 32bit Leopard.
     
Catfish_Man
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 25, 2006, 10:36 PM
 
10.4 is actually significantly faster than 10.3 in places (unfortunately mds/mdimport then proceed to make a bunch of stuff slower >.< ). Also, I have info on specific things they're doing to make 10.5 faster, I just can't talk about it.
     
Chuckit
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 25, 2006, 10:44 PM
 
Being 64-bit will not make a difference to you, since you don't have a 64-bit processor anyway.
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
quattrokid73  (op)
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Huntingdon Valley, PA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 25, 2006, 11:56 PM
 
good news! of course it always sucks when the new, better, version of what you have comes out...

but i got such a good deal i cant help but be happy...

2.16 core duo, 2gb, 120gHD, applecare for $2k...

oh, and any ETA for leapord anyways?
     
Big Mac
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 26, 2006, 12:38 AM
 
Originally Posted by Chuckit View Post
Being 64-bit will not make a difference to you, since you don't have a 64-bit processor anyway.
We should have a 64-bit FAQ because I can foresee that we'll run into this question again.

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
quattrokid73  (op)
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Huntingdon Valley, PA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 26, 2006, 12:48 AM
 
yes that might be a good diea
     
Gee4orce
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Staffs, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 26, 2006, 05:27 AM
 
No release of OS X has been slower than the release it replaces, so I think we can safely rule that option out. Of course, 'slower' is subjective, and thinks like Spotlight indexing can have a short term effect on responsiveness, and Time Machine might also have unpredictable effects too, you milage may vary and errors and omissions excepted.....

In short:

Who knows ??!!
     
Morpheus
Forum Regular
Join Date: Jun 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 26, 2006, 08:29 AM
 
Originally Posted by Catfish_Man View Post
Also, I have info on specific things they're doing to make 10.5 faster, I just can't talk about it.
Remove debug code?
     
Catfish_Man
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 26, 2006, 03:25 PM
 
Originally Posted by Gee4orce View Post
and Time Machine might also have unpredictable effects
I'm wondering about this one myself. Unfortunately, I haven't got an extra external drive to experiment with.
     
zerroeffect
Forum Regular
Join Date: Jul 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 26, 2006, 04:40 PM
 
Would 64-bit actually help drive the OS or is that something used more for video encoding and such?
     
Catfish_Man
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 26, 2006, 05:23 PM
 
Originally Posted by zerroeffect View Post
Would 64-bit actually help drive the OS or is that something used more for video encoding and such?
In the general sense, neither, aside from being able to use >4GB of ram.

However, this line: "...However, the functionality for 64-bit QuickTime is only provided via the QTKit framework. The current C-based QuickTime API will only be supported in 32-bit mode..." from Apple's leopard preview page may or may not imply that they've taken advantage of the lack of backwards compatibility hassles (not exactly a lot of 64 bit code out there to maintain compatibility with) to make some changes in 64 bit mode. Could also just be that they decided not to bother* upgrading the old API to 64 bit compatible.


*some of the old QT datatypes were probably explicitly sized as 32 bit anyway, since it's all quickdraw derived.
     
quattrokid73  (op)
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Huntingdon Valley, PA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 27, 2006, 01:19 AM
 
so is there any kind of ETA for Leapord? Also, will it come with a nicer program suite?

Adam
     
Chuckit
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 27, 2006, 01:46 AM
 
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
JKT
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: London, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 27, 2006, 02:56 AM
 
Originally Posted by quattrokid73 View Post
so is there any kind of ETA for Leapord? Also, will it come with a nicer program suite?

Adam
It's due in "spring" next year which can mean anything from January to May, with somewhere closer to May being the more likely of those two extremes.
     
quattrokid73  (op)
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Huntingdon Valley, PA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 27, 2006, 09:42 AM
 
:-/
     
mitchell_pgh
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Washington, DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 27, 2006, 09:56 AM
 
I would rather hear "Spring 2007"

vs.

Winter 2005
Summer 2005
Fall 2005
Spring 2006
Fall 2006
Very Late 2006
Early 2007

I feel Microsoft should be sued regarding their false advertising. IMHO, they have been stringing many people along since early 2004 that Longhorn/Vista was "just around the corner." Now, here we are years later... and half the features they originally indicated.

I'm not saying Apple is perfect, but at least I generally trust their delivery schedules.
     
Salty
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Winnipeg, MB
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 27, 2006, 02:35 PM
 
I can't see Leopard getting slower, which is nice to think . Every version of OS X has given us performance increases not decreases. Keep in mind it matters for Apple that the hardware feel fast. As opposed to Microsoft, where if the machine feels slow someone will soon buy a new comp with a new copy of the OS.
     
seanc
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Cambridge, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 27, 2006, 02:47 PM
 
Originally Posted by mitchell_pgh View Post
I would rather hear "Spring 2007"

vs.

Winter 2005
Summer 2005
Fall 2005
Spring 2006
Fall 2006
Very Late 2006
Early 2007

I feel Microsoft should be sued regarding their false advertising. IMHO, they have been stringing many people along since early 2004 that Longhorn/Vista was "just around the corner." Now, here we are years later... and half the features they originally indicated.

I'm not saying Apple is perfect, but at least I generally trust their delivery schedules.
IMO, Microsoft should be sued for a lot of reasons.
     
tkmd
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Michigan
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 27, 2006, 03:53 PM
 
I really think that 10.5 is going to slower than 10.4 and especially 10.3 (on a G4). Think of all the added overhead that has been added in Leopard so far - time machine, reworked spotlight, not to mention all the add-ons that Apple has not yet released publicly. Now granted some things like time machine will be able top be turned off, but there are still components of it running in the backround. All these things take up CPU, although little, but enough of them running at the same time your machine will take a performance hit.

10.4 was a turning point for OS X. Up to 10.3 each iteration of OSX ran faster than the one prior to it - until 10.4. Not sure if the engineers said "that's all we can do" or if any optimizations in 10.4 were off set by added "bloat" (look at the size of 10.3 install cd vs 10.4 install dvd). I expect that 10.5 will have much more bloat than 10.4 but will run as fast as 10.4 on Intel (their hw just gets faster so quickly) because of multiprocessor nature of core duo line.

The real answer to your question is to ask will 10.5 run faster on a g4 system.
Pismo 400 | Powerbook 1.5 GHz | MacPro 2.66/6GB/7300GT
     
Chuckit
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 27, 2006, 05:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by tkmd View Post
I really think that 10.5 is going to slower than 10.4 and especially 10.3 (on a G4). Think of all the added overhead that has been added in Leopard so far - time machine, reworked spotlight
How do you know that these add significant overhead — if any at all? The reworked Spotlight could actually be more efficient for all we know. Beyond that, speedups in other areas could more than compensate.
( Last edited by Chuckit; Oct 27, 2006 at 05:07 PM. )
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
mitchell_pgh
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Washington, DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 28, 2006, 02:24 AM
 
Originally Posted by Chuckit View Post
How do you know that these add significant overhead — if any at all? The reworked Spotlight could actually be more efficient for all we know. Beyond that, speedups in other areas could more than compensate.
I agree... Time Machine simply uses components already in the OS... and Spotlight is already there, so I'm guessing it's not going to be overwhelming.

Also, those two features may have ZERO overhead to the system when not in use.
     
Catfish_Man
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 28, 2006, 03:43 AM
 
Spotlight is certainly not going to get slower.
     
tkmd
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Michigan
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 28, 2006, 03:54 PM
 
Like I said the CD chips are fast enough to make up for increased overhead because of the CD shear speed. However, can you honestly say that if one takes a g4 PB and put leopard on it that it will be faster than say Panther? I think G4 chips will begin to choke on leopard.

I think that Apple is starting to do what MS has been doing for years- adding unnecessary weight (ie unneeded functions/ eye candy) to its applications ( think iTunes 7) and there's nothing to suggest that they wont do the same for the OS in 10.5. But to respond to the OP, I dont think CD/C2D users will notice much because of the powerful chip.
Pismo 400 | Powerbook 1.5 GHz | MacPro 2.66/6GB/7300GT
     
Catfish_Man
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 28, 2006, 04:41 PM
 
there's nothing to suggest that they wont do the same for the OS in 10.5
Except for Time Machine (which is optional, of course), I can't think of anything* that would be adding overhead in 10.5, and I know they're speeding parts of it up. I just can't talk about what or how.

So yes. On my G4 PowerBook, I have seen things go faster. I've also seen things go slower, but I asked around and one case appears to have been a bug fixed in later versions. The other cases are all one application, so we'll see...


*I just remembered one other thing that might be a little bit of overhead, but it's very small and the overhead goes away quickly.
( Last edited by Catfish_Man; Oct 28, 2006 at 04:44 PM. Reason: Remembered Something)
     
nathanxu
Forum Regular
Join Date: Mar 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 28, 2006, 08:12 PM
 
I am still unsure whether I should wait for the 10.5 pre installed MBP or I should just buy the much needed MPR now. Would there be much different to the machine if I will install the 10.5 after I purchase the machine. Because I noticed that my GF's G3 iBook came with 10.2, I was only able to install 10.3 afterward, but her machine does not recognise 10.4, so I guess apple doesn't usually let you install 2 system gap.
I am planning to use this MBP for 3 years at least, does that means I can't install 10.6?
Hard choice.
iMac 24 Inch, 2.93 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 8 GB 1067 MHz DDR2 SDRAM, 640 GB Hard drive, 256 MB NVIDIA
iPhone5 64GB Black
1TB Time Capsule
     
Salty
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Winnipeg, MB
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 28, 2006, 08:59 PM
 
That makes little sense. You should have been able to install Tiger on that iBook.

Anyway, I don't think Apple is adding tons of feature bloat. iTunes 7 still feels like a snappy application. Granted I moved from running 6 on my old PowerBook to 7 on the new MacBook so I don't know how it would feel on an older machine though I haven't heard anyone in dorm complain.
     

Junior Member
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: 1 Infinite Loop
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 28, 2006, 09:08 PM
 
Leopard should be faster than Tiger on almost any recent Mac.
-
     
lookmark
Mac Elite
Join Date: May 2001
Location: NYC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 29, 2006, 12:39 AM
 
Maybe, maybe not.

We don't really know until we've seen the final version.

I have a little suspicion that Leopard is going to be very different, and a bit more demanding, than any previous version of OS X.

But in reference to the OP.... yes, you should be just fine with a recent machine like a MBP.
     
Drizzt
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu, Québec, Canada
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 29, 2006, 09:53 PM
 
Originally Posted by nathanxu View Post
I am still unsure whether I should wait for the 10.5 pre installed MBP or I should just buy the much needed MPR now. Would there be much different to the machine if I will install the 10.5 after I purchase the machine. Because I noticed that my GF's G3 iBook came with 10.2, I was only able to install 10.3 afterward, but her machine does not recognise 10.4, so I guess apple doesn't usually let you install 2 system gap.
I am planning to use this MBP for 3 years at least, does that means I can't install 10.6?
Hard choice.
That iBook probable don't have a DVD drive, that's why it didn't recognise your install media.
     
Chuckit
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 29, 2006, 11:16 PM
 
I don't know about the iBook, but 10.4 supports my 400 MHz G3 iMac from 2000 (which came with OS 9 installed). No doubt 10.6 will be able to run on a Mac Pro.
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
JKT
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: London, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 30, 2006, 04:45 AM
 
Originally Posted by Drizzt View Post
That iBook probable don't have a DVD drive, that's why it didn't recognise your install media.
You can get Apple to send you CD install media in place of your DVDs (at the sadly additional cost that is typical of Apple). Alternatively, if the iBook has a Firewire port and you have a second Mac with a DVD drive, you can use Firewire target disk mode to install onto the iBook from that other Mac.
     
   
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:30 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,