68kMLA Classic Interface

This is a version of the 68kMLA forums for viewing on your favorite old mac. Visitors on modern platforms may prefer the main site.

Click here to select a new forum.
New G5
Posted by: derek on 2024-09-17 07:43:24
I have a G5 2Ghz, that I got on eBay local pickup only for £0.99
s-l1600.jpgs-l960 (2).jpgs-l960.jpgs-l960 (1).jpg
I have never had a G5, is OS9 worth installing or struggle on with Tiger/Leopard.

I was going to install MorphOS, but maybe stay with Apple.
Posted by: LaPorta on 2024-09-17 07:47:12
Can't install OS 9 natively, though it can run via Classic. Tiger/Leopard run very well on these. One of my favorite period games that will work well on it is Command & COnquer: Generals.
Posted by: MrFahrenheit on 2024-09-17 08:56:16
A G5 is a great machine.

You might want to partition your drive and dual boot between Tiger 10.4 and Leopard 10.5. You can then install OS 9 Classic environment on Tiger and use that.
Posted by: derek on 2024-09-17 09:01:04
Hi,

I assumed that because I run OS9 on a Mac Mini G4 A1103, 1.25Ghz, that the G5 would run it natively.

I think the G5 is running Tiger, which maybe good to boot into OS9 as stated above.
Posted by: Snial on 2024-09-17 09:04:41
I have a G5 2Ghz, that I got on eBay local pickup only for £0.99
View attachment 78436View attachment 78434View attachment 78435View attachment 78433
I have never had a G5, is OS9 worth installing or struggle on with Tiger/Leopard.

I was going to install MorphOS, but maybe stay with Apple.
That's an amazing deal! I guess they're hard to sell, because they're so bulky.

Power Macintosh G5 2.0 DP (PCI) Specs (Early 2005, M9747LL/A, PowerMac7,3, A1047, 2061): EveryMac.com

Technical specifications for the Power Macintosh G5 2.0 DP (PCI). Dates sold, processor type, memory info, hard drive details, price and more.
everymac.com everymac.com


Single core Geekbench tests put it at 1734; making it about 1734/2070=84% as fast as a Core Duo Mac mini/1.6GHz.

Mac Performance (February 2008) - Geekbench Blog

www.geekbench.com www.geekbench.com

OTOH it's 2x faster than my iMac G5 at 1.8GHz. Even though it doesn't look like the PMG5 could run Geekbench 3, if it did it would probably score about 686 SC and 1195 MP. By comparison, my Mac mini G4/1.33 scores 771 on Geekbench 2: on GeekBench 3 it'd be: 310.

Compare Macs, Compare iPods, iPhones & iPads @ EveryMac.com

EveryMac.com's Ultimate Mac Comparison - compare Macs, iPods, iPhones & iPads side-by-side, Mac comparison charts, iPod comparison charts & more.
everymac.com everymac.com
Hi,

I assumed that because I run OS9 on a Mac Mini G4 A1103, 1.25Ghz, that the G5 would run it natively.
Don't you need a special OS9 CD to do that? I would have thought that because the G4 Macs came out while it was possible to run Mac OS 9 natively, then it's possible to have a pseudo-Mac OS 9, but the G5s came out after Mac OS X was standard, so there's no G5 that ever booted into Classic.
I think the G5 is running Tiger, which maybe good to boot into OS9 as stated above.
Tiger is the penultimate PowerPC Mac OS. But it would interesting to see if my understanding of what can run Mac OS 9 is misplaced.
Posted by: joshc on 2024-09-17 09:11:31
I assumed that because I run OS9 on a Mac Mini G4 A1103, 1.25Ghz, that the G5 would run it natively.

The G5 came out well into Apple's transition to OS X, and as such doesn't run OS 9 natively.

The last run of MDD G4s could run OS 9:

What is the fastest Mac capable of booting into MacOS 9?: EveryMac.com

Provides information on the fastest Power Macintosh G4, iMac, eMac, iBook, and PowerBook G4 that can boot in MacOS 9.
everymac.com everymac.com
Posted by: Trash80toHP_Mini on 2024-09-17 17:05:23
First, congrats!

What was the fastest G5 that could Run 9.2.2 in Classic and how Might that compare to Native 9.2.2 performance of my last gasp, OS9 compatible MDD-03?
Posted by: MrFahrenheit on 2024-09-17 17:24:42
First, congrats!

What was the fastest G5 that could Run 9.2.2 in Classic and how Might that compare to Native 9.2.2 performance of my last gasp, OS9 compatible MDD-03?
The most accessible would be the dual core 2.3Ghz for the last and fastest.

The absolute fastest and last one to run it would be the quad 2.7 (dual 2.7 dual core) G5.
Posted by: Michael_b on 2024-09-17 20:50:32
The most accessible would be the dual core 2.3Ghz for the last and fastest.

The absolute fastest and last one to run it would be the quad 2.7 (dual 2.7 dual core) G5.

There was no quad core 2.7GHz G5. There was a Dual Processor (single core each) 2.7GHz G5 which preceded the Quad G5.

I’m not sure what you mean by most accessible.
Posted by: Snial on 2024-09-18 01:19:34
First, congrats!

What was the fastest G5 that could Run 9.2.2 in Classic and how Might that compare to Native 9.2.2 performance of my last gasp, OS9 compatible MDD-03?
There's a good LowEndMac article on that:
lowendmac.com

How Fast Is Classic Mode on a Power Mac G5? - Low End Mac

I’ve been using Classic Mode on G4 Power Macs for years, but now I have a 2.3 GHz Power Mac G5 with dual processors. It can’t boot Mac OS 9 natively, but it can run Classic Mode. How fast is it? One beautiful thing about dual-processor Macs is that they can fully dedicate one CPU […]
lowendmac.com lowendmac.com
I saw another MacRumours article that said the PowerMac Quad G5 is dreadful at Mac OS 9 games under Classic.
Posted by: LaPorta on 2024-09-18 04:09:38
I'd wager that any G4 will be pretty darn good at the vast majority of the software that was meant for classic Mac OS. You wouldn't gain anything by using a G5.
Posted by: MrFahrenheit on 2024-09-18 05:38:34
There was no quad core 2.7GHz G5. There was a Dual Processor (single core each) 2.7GHz G5 which preceded the Quad G5.

I’m not sure what you mean by most accessible.
I said Quad 2.7 and in brackets I did clarify it was two dual core 2.7ghz. Not sure where the misunderstanding would come from. 🤷‍♂️

Edit: now I see what you mean. I apologize. I got the specs mixed up. The quad was a machine with two dual core 2.5Ghz CPUs.

As for “more accessible” I mean easier to find and easier to find in working condition, and easier to keep in working condition. The dual core 2.3 are air cooled and by that point in time of manufacture are among the most reliable G5s made. The quad 2.5 is considered fairly hard to find, fairly hard to keep working without significant work to the cooling system.
Posted by: cheesestraws on 2024-09-18 06:00:37
99p for a G5 is pretty good.

As for “more accessible” I mean easier to find and easier to find in working condition, and easier to keep in working condition. The dual core 2.3 are air cooled and by that point in time of manufacture are among the most reliable G5s made. The quad 2.5 is considered fairly hard to find, fairly hard to keep working without significant work to the cooling system.

Yeah, the liquid cooled ones seem to be basically self-destructing at this point. Rather a shame.
Posted by: LaPorta on 2024-09-18 06:33:40
99p for a G5 is pretty good.



Yeah, the liquid cooled ones seem to be basically self-destructing at this point. Rather a shame.
I consider myself lucky we got my father a single processor one in 2005 that has since become mine for that very reason.
Posted by: Trash80toHP_Mini on 2024-09-18 10:12:26
@derek hope this tangent isn't objectionable.. should I start a new topic?

Curious about running higher resolutions, levels of USB and SATA running Classic under Tiger?
1