stryder Posted November 7, 2005 Share Posted November 7, 2005 So, I thought I would try 8F1099 on my Dual G4 to see what the differences were. When I booted up, I noticed right aways that it took about 200MB more RAM to run than 8F46 (the official 10.4.3 for PPC Macs). Anyone else notice any differences between 8F1099 and 8F46? Or am I the only one installing the x86 version native on my G4? Link to comment https://www.insanelymac.com/forum/topic/4201-os-x-1043-8f1099-installs-on-g4-mac/ Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tak Posted November 7, 2005 Share Posted November 7, 2005 Interesting. Are all your components working? e.g. the ATI card? Link to comment https://www.insanelymac.com/forum/topic/4201-os-x-1043-8f1099-installs-on-g4-mac/#findComment-27078 Share on other sites More sharing options...
stryder Posted November 8, 2005 Author Share Posted November 8, 2005 Interesting. Are all your components working? e.g. the ATI card? Most things worked flawlessly. DVD Player crashed. I didn't try too many things, but the graphical display was working perfectly. I have a Radeon 9000. I'll have to re-install it again and see if CoreImage, Quartz, etc., work or not and report back. Link to comment https://www.insanelymac.com/forum/topic/4201-os-x-1043-8f1099-installs-on-g4-mac/#findComment-27264 Share on other sites More sharing options...
grabberslasher Posted November 8, 2005 Share Posted November 8, 2005 Most things worked flawlessly. DVD Player crashed. I didn't try too many things, but the graphical display was working perfectly. I have a Radeon 9000. I'll have to re-install it again and see if CoreImage, Quartz, etc., work or not and report back. I would say because all your binaries are universal there is extra overhead perhaps? Link to comment https://www.insanelymac.com/forum/topic/4201-os-x-1043-8f1099-installs-on-g4-mac/#findComment-27295 Share on other sites More sharing options...
stryder Posted November 9, 2005 Author Share Posted November 9, 2005 I would say because all your binaries are universal there is extra overhead perhaps? That's what I'm guessing. I'll try it again when I have time (I re-formatted the drive I tried it on). Link to comment https://www.insanelymac.com/forum/topic/4201-os-x-1043-8f1099-installs-on-g4-mac/#findComment-27430 Share on other sites More sharing options...
user2 Posted November 9, 2005 Share Posted November 9, 2005 I'm installing it right now on an old G3. I can't check for core image support but I can see if the quartz hack works. Link to comment https://www.insanelymac.com/forum/topic/4201-os-x-1043-8f1099-installs-on-g4-mac/#findComment-27445 Share on other sites More sharing options...
user2 Posted November 9, 2005 Share Posted November 9, 2005 Ok, I finished installing 8f1099 on my G3 with a Radeon 7000. I used pci extreme to enable quartz extreme and it works. Link to comment https://www.insanelymac.com/forum/topic/4201-os-x-1043-8f1099-installs-on-g4-mac/#findComment-27507 Share on other sites More sharing options...
unixguru Posted December 3, 2005 Share Posted December 3, 2005 That doesn't make any sense. Universal Binaries (or FAT binaries) are simply a bundle with two slices of code. The OS just decides which slice it needs, and then execs it. The other is completely ignored. It will take more disk space, but should make NO difference in the amount of RAM needed. What you're seeing is probably at least partially due to the the compiler and other build options. It's a developer-only build after all. I suspect there is extra debugging code that has been included in the build and the compiler options may also not be set for the most efficient use of RAM. All that gets taken out when they build for release to everyone and their cat. Link to comment https://www.insanelymac.com/forum/topic/4201-os-x-1043-8f1099-installs-on-g4-mac/#findComment-33664 Share on other sites More sharing options...
mk14 Posted December 3, 2005 Share Posted December 3, 2005 Interesting. The Mac OS X x86 developer release actually also contains the PPC version? Michael Link to comment https://www.insanelymac.com/forum/topic/4201-os-x-1043-8f1099-installs-on-g4-mac/#findComment-33772 Share on other sites More sharing options...
macgirl Posted December 3, 2005 Share Posted December 3, 2005 Yeah, you can install it with a Mac or in PearPC Link to comment https://www.insanelymac.com/forum/topic/4201-os-x-1043-8f1099-installs-on-g4-mac/#findComment-33776 Share on other sites More sharing options...
mk14 Posted December 3, 2005 Share Posted December 3, 2005 Yeah, you can install it with a Mac or in PearPC I didn't know that this release was already a "universal installer package" with universal binaries. Michael Link to comment https://www.insanelymac.com/forum/topic/4201-os-x-1043-8f1099-installs-on-g4-mac/#findComment-33826 Share on other sites More sharing options...
macgirl Posted December 3, 2005 Share Posted December 3, 2005 Not just this, since the first DTK. BTW, some of the first installations methods were based on PPC Mac Installations, deadmoo image was based on my Mac and PearPC installations. Link to comment https://www.insanelymac.com/forum/topic/4201-os-x-1043-8f1099-installs-on-g4-mac/#findComment-33836 Share on other sites More sharing options...
cyrana Posted December 4, 2005 Share Posted December 4, 2005 Yeah, macgirl is right... Also, most of you with older cards won't get CI, even on a ppc mac. It needs certain pixel shaders, which only really exist on like a 9500+ on the ATi side (and I forget what you need on nvidia side). Link to comment https://www.insanelymac.com/forum/topic/4201-os-x-1043-8f1099-installs-on-g4-mac/#findComment-33844 Share on other sites More sharing options...
macgirl Posted December 4, 2005 Share Posted December 4, 2005 Yeah, macgirl is right... Also, most of you with older cards won't get CI, even on a ppc mac. It needs certain pixel shaders, which only really exist on like a 9500+ on the ATi side (and I forget what you need on nvidia side). Yeah I have a Geforce 440MX on the PowerBook no CI. But the new ones with ATI Cards and the Geforce FX5200 support it I believe that the Nvidia begin support CI with the FX 5xxx, and of course all 6xxx and 7xxx Link to comment https://www.insanelymac.com/forum/topic/4201-os-x-1043-8f1099-installs-on-g4-mac/#findComment-34014 Share on other sites More sharing options...
stryder Posted December 4, 2005 Author Share Posted December 4, 2005 (edited) Yeah, macgirl is right... Also, most of you with older cards won't get CI, even on a ppc mac. It needs certain pixel shaders, which only really exist on like a 9500+ on the ATi side (and I forget what you need on nvidia side). Hey! I never noticed that before! My 9000 Pro on my G4 doesn't support Core Image: ATI Radeon 9000 Pro: Chipset Model: ATY,RV250 Type: Display Bus: AGP Slot: SLOT-1 VRAM (Total): 64 MB Vendor: ATI (0x1002) Device ID: 0x4966 Revision ID: 0x0001 ROM Revisioin: 113-99702-131 Displays: Displays: Apple Studio Display: Display Type: LCD Resolution: 1024 x 768 Depth: 32-bit Color Core Image: Not Supported Main Display: Yes Mirror: Off Online: Yes Quartz Extreme: Supported Rotation: Supported Edited December 4, 2005 by stryder Link to comment https://www.insanelymac.com/forum/topic/4201-os-x-1043-8f1099-installs-on-g4-mac/#findComment-34016 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts