Eskurza, on Nov 17 2005, 04:24 PM, said:
However for SSE2 cpu people the emulation of the PPC apps in even slower.. sometime making it impossbile to work with..
Agreed, my SSE2 only AMD64 Winchester running PPC Office 2004 through VMware RC2 is a complete torment to use, as could be expected from something like tripple emulation (Vmware + Rosetta + SSE3-->SSE2 patch).
dkelley, on Nov 25 2005, 09:07 PM, said:
Office 2004 is pretty quick.
Again, a drama in my case.
Takes about a minute to load M$ Word. Feels like running XP on a 386 with only 32 mb of system memory available (assuming that would be possible) or like running under
PearPC.
I wonder...would an older version of PPC Office for Mac be faster in a scenario like mine?
Are there universal binary alternatives to PPC M$ Office available perhaps?
Because universal binary version vs PPC apps really make a difference.
For instance Opera browser 8.5 was dreadfull in my case, took ages to load and the whole damn thing felt totally unresponsive, which lead me to ignore Opera on the Mac and chosing Safari & Shiira instead, while constantly missing the mouse gestures I was used to from using Opera under Windows.
Then the universal binary version 9 beta of Opera came out...day & night difference and been using it eversince much to my delight...mouse gestures again!!!
I find myself preferring booting up my mac through vmware for surfing above natively under Windows.
But back to your main question, I think especially with the universal binary versions of Mac apps you can expect the x86 Tiger to be quite usable for actual work...provided you have supported hardware or someone writes a proper .kext.
I guess at this moment this what it comes down to. What are your system specs?