[Tuoder]

I have a Powerbook G3 (Lombard). Is it worth putting linux on it to run BOINC? Do you think I would be better off just selling it? Should I try to put Panther on it?

[reader50]

G3s are really getting iffy for DC work. They can run the clients, but the results/electricity ratio is low compared to modern boxes.

[Tuoder]

Originally Posted by reader50 

G3s are really getting iffy for DC work. They can run the clients, but the results/electricity ratio is low compared to modern boxes.

I don't pay the bill, my parents do. I was just wonder if it was a total waste of time as it doesn't actually meet the requirements. It has 192MB of RAM and a 333Mhz CPU.

[beadman]

My old tray loader 333MHz iMac is running panther on 256M RAM, and it cranks out an Einstein unit at around 2.5 or so WU per day for around 30 credits average. SETI gives me about the same rate. None of the optimized clients run any faster on the old G3 (at least that I've found. I keep it to run my wireless router, printer, and scanner, so I just let it crank out 30 or so credits per day and it contributes to elevating the cold basement temperature just a bit

beadman

[Gecko_r7]

Just my 2 cents.
Depends on your goal.... but if it runs fine and you can use it for other things, go for it.
Check out Yellow Dog Linux.


As a dedicated crunch box? You must either have an emotional attachment to it or are addicted to S@H. If you can get a couple of Franklins for it, @ $250.00 you can buy a much faster econo-box and pick-up a cheapie monitor for almost nothing on E-bay.

Does the G3 have the hardware to run BOINC? Yep.
Efficiently? Not by todays standards.

Your happiness?
Priceless.

Cheers!

[beadman]

Speaking of crunch boxes, Gecko, that iMac of yours is up another few positions today! Awesome performance.

Just checked the Apple store and my MBP 2.16, less than three months old, is obsolete - they have a new MBP at 2.33 GHz...

Ah, well, I'm still second fastest laptop in the world for a while longer...
beadman

[Tuoder]

This has been my pet project before. I used to have a Celeron 2.3Ghz running all of the time just because it was SETI. Right now, I have my 3Ghz P4 running 24/7 just becuase I barely use it, and it would have been off all of the time. I have an iMac G3 running as a web/ftp server all of the time, so I figured that it has a few extra cycles as well. I have this PBG3 that I really have no use for anymore just sitting by my desk. I wonder to myself if it is worth sticking in the basement as a dedicated crunch box. It has seen some wear and tear, the battery is dying, the CD drive has lost its bezel, and the PC Card slot has lost its button. I hate to throw away working computers though. If it has a use, however small, I want to use it. If it is just going to slow everyone down by not meeting deadlines, I don't want to bother with it.

It didn't run Ubuntu very well off of live cd. Would it run all that much faster if it was installed? My inkling is yes, but again, it really doesn't meet the RAM requirements.

Also, since we're talking about busted laptops...

http://forums.macnn.com/59/marketpla...-i-am-serious/

[Gecko_r7]

You might check Xubuntu, it's a lighter distro than Ubuntu.
Like any OS, if you disable non-essential processes/applications and all the tossed-in goodies you don't need, you can make it work better w/ the memory you have.

Your hardware should be well within the ability to run a light Linux install, whether Ubuntu, Xbuntu , yellow dog etc.

Good luck!

[Tuoder]

Originally Posted by Gecko_r7 

You might check Xbuntu, it's a lighter distro than Ubuntu.
Like any OS, if you disable non-essential processes/application and all the tossed-in goodies you don't need, you can make it work better w/ the memory you have.

Your hardware should be well within the ability to run a light Linux install, whether Ubuntu Xbuntu , yellow dog etc.

Good luck!

Xbuntu is ubuntu with X windows, correct? I don't know too much about linux. I can use it, but that is about it. I could get down the footprint in windows, classic, or OS X (to a lesser degree), but Linux I have not tried. I guess I will get back here with my results. It is a bit of a plunge, as I have no Mac OS cds, so if I take the plunge, it will be relatively permanent. That makes me hesitant.

[Gecko_r7]

Hey there Beadman.
Yeah this iMac has far surpassed my expectations w/ crunching.
She should reach 1500 RAC I think, perhaps a tad better.
Just amazes me that it runs quicker than the all the "non-quad" tower model 2.3, 2.5 & 2.7 PPCs of recent.
When I bought this, I didn't realize the system board used is a intel 945-based mobile chipset, and that it uses laptop based memory. So...I'm stuck w/ CL 5-5-5-15 memory timing running at 667. No way to tighten this up. Initially, I thought I could get an easy boost w/ a couple of tight CL 3 sticks.

What doesn't make sense to me is mine is the 2.0GHz flavor, not 2.16. I'd assume your MBP w/ 2.16, or any other BMP at higher speed should outrun me, even if only slightly. So far, mine is running quicker and I don't know a good reason why unless your MBP is based on the Core 2 Yonah CPU, and not C2D? This would explain the difference.

So, RAC 1500 is pretty amazing considering it's saddled w/ slower and higher latency memory than desktop chipset options and runs a tick slower than the 2.16 iMacs and MBP.

Whisper quiet, no noticeable heat even at 100% CPU load (which is constant as S@H runs 24/7).

BTW, I don't expect very high rankings for long on the Top 1000 list.
Sure are ALOT of Conroe's and Mac Pros showing up daily.
When the 4 core chips start shipping soon, dual core's are going to become real cheap not long afterwards.
Progress waits for no one

Cheers!

[Gecko_r7]

Originally Posted by Tuoder 

Xbuntu is ubuntu with X windows, correct? I don't know too much about linux. I can use it, but that is about it. I could get down the footprint in windows, classic, or OS X (to a lesser degree), but Linux I have not tried. I guess I will get back here with my results. It is a bit of a plunge, as I have no Mac OS cds, so if I take the plunge, it will be relatively permanent. That makes me hesitant.

This should answer more of your questions.
Xubuntu Home Page | Xubuntu.org

It uses the Xfce desktop environment.
Xfce - Desktop Environment

I believe Yellow Dog 4.1 should also work fine.

[alexkan]

Originally Posted by Gecko_r7 

What doesn't make sense to me is mine is the 2.0GHz flavor, not 2.16. I'd assume your MBP w/ 2.16, or any other BMP at higher speed should outrun me, even if only slightly. So far, mine is running quicker and I don't know a good reason why unless your MBP is based on the Core 2 Yonah CPU, and not C2D? This would explain the difference.

The Core 2 Duo in your iMac has quite a few architectural advantages over the Core Duos (note the lack of number) that have powered MacBook Pros up until yesterday. C2Ds are much more efficient, clock-for-clock, for the type of crunching SETI is doing.

[Gecko_r7]

Ah ha! So current MBPs were Yonah-based CPUs and Apple just announced new C2D models in the past day. That would certainly explain the difference.

Thanks for clarifying Alex!

[beadman]

Originally Posted by Gecko_r7 

Hey there Beadman.
...
What doesn't make sense to me is mine is the 2.0GHz flavor, not 2.16. I'd assume your MBP w/ 2.16, or any other BMP at higher speed should outrun me, even if only slightly. So far, mine is running quicker and I don't know a good reason why unless your MBP is based on the Core 2 Yonah CPU, and not C2D? This would explain the difference.
...
Cheers!

As Alex said, I think your processor/bus/memory is much more efficient. I'm taking around 7200-7300 cpusec to gain 63.73 credits on my MBP 2.16, while your iMac is taking 5680 cpusec to earn the same 63.73 credits.

To get back (more or less) to what the thread is about my old 333 MHz iMac takes 50,300 cpusec to earn 12.53 credits vs my MBP taking 2200 for the same credits and your machine takes 1715 for the 12.5 credits. The old machines are quite slow, but they still keep crunching!

beadman