- #Tenfourfox no longer supports youtube install#
- #Tenfourfox no longer supports youtube plus#
- #Tenfourfox no longer supports youtube mac#
#Tenfourfox no longer supports youtube install#
The clear winner in this test is the Mini, by a considerable margin.įor the web browsing test I decided to install El Capitan. While not perfect I think this adjustment is reasonable. Converting the PowerMac numbers to represent a dual processor, 2.0GHz PowerMac results in a transcode speed of 6 hours and 23 minutes at a frame rate of 12 fps. It is clear the Mini is considerably faster than the PowerMac. Times were calculated by dividing the number of frames processed by the frame rate.
Mini: 2 hours and 52 minutes at an average frame rate of 26.9 fps.PowerMac: 14 hours and 11 minutes at an average frame rate of 5.4 fps.Handbrake transcode of Scooby Doo Season One DVD, Handbrake 0.9.4, normal preset, PowerMac was running OS X 10.5.8, the Mini was running OS X 10.6.8 (I wanted to use Leopard but the Mini requires 10.5.6 to install and all I have on hand is 10.5.0). The latter I can only provide subjective measures. The first I am able to provide objective numbers for. I did little benchmarking with it limiting the comparison to two tasks that I regularly do: Transcoding and web browsing. That system configuration is: Late 2004 1.8GHz G5 processor, 2GB RAM, 80GB SATA HD, and GeForce FX 5200 GPU.
#Tenfourfox no longer supports youtube mac#
The reason for acquiring this system was simple: I wanted to compare a low cost Intel Mac with my PowerMac G5. I could have purchased just the Mini for lower cost but not having a power adapter was a non-starter as I'd have had to buy that too negating the lower cost.
Total cost, including shipping, was $60.00. It came with the power adapter and mini DVI to VGA adapter. AS a refresher it is an early 2009 2.0GHz Core 2 Duo model, 1GB of RAM, 120GB SATA HD, and GeForce 9400M GPU. Wanted to circle back on my progress with the Mini I purchased.
#Tenfourfox no longer supports youtube plus#
Kaiser), can live without Apple's old OSes and only see them as a plus to the differing central priority, which is to - regardless if they're Macs or not - drive well-built computer machines with badass RISC processors that had roots in the server markets, high-end workstation areas, supercomputing sectors, and even space exploration.Ĭase in point, if I came into possession of an IBM IntelliStation POWER machine, or anything by Raptor, I would drive that instead because it more directly appeals to my tastes, skipping the Apple branding, apps, and OSes in the process, leaving just pure POWER and UNIX heaven.Īnd that probably mostly explains my work with Linux / BSD on PowerPC, because the machine itself is the goal. I (and I think a smaller amount of people than the former group, including Dr. And there's nothing wrong with that at all. It simply comes down to that for you and many others, because that's the central priority. You've hit the nail on the head in that you want to run an old Apple Mac to run old Apple OSes. Evidently, this also means that they have multiple qualities that appeal to multiple types of people with different priorities. We have different reasons for using the same machines, all just as valid as the other. I feel like this is another great divide among not only this forum, but for the rest of whoever else continues to insist on using their PowerPC Macs into the next decade.
0 kommentar(er)
