Author Topic: Let1kWindowsBloom: check the cholesterol of your Mac.  (Read 5573 times)

Offline MacTron

  • Global Moderator
  • Platinum Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1918
  • keep it simple
Let1kWindowsBloom: check the cholesterol of your Mac.
« on: September 17, 2014, 07:46:02 AM »
Let1kWindowsBloom is one of my favourites test for Mac Os, because it check the real and raw speed of your computer and the overall responsiveness,this is an easy way to see how an excessive amount system extensions and control panels damage our system performance -cholesterol :) -.
Those are some results:

iMac G4 @700Mhz 1024*468 @24bits
6.86 sec

G4 MDD S@1.5Ghz Ti4600 1680*1050 @24bits
1.81 sec

Sawtoth 7448@2.0Ghz Radeon 8500 1920*1080 @24bits
1.51 sec
« Last Edit: September 17, 2014, 08:01:44 AM by MacTron »
Please don't PM about things that are not private.

Offline Syntho

  • Platinum Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 849
Re: Let1kWindowsBloom: check the cholesterol of your Mac.
« Reply #1 on: September 17, 2014, 10:06:08 AM »
I'm getting 15 seconds on my Sonnet 300/200/1M on my 9600.

Offline Protools5LEGuy

  • Global Moderator
  • Platinum Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2059
Re: Let1kWindowsBloom: check the cholesterol of your Mac.
« Reply #2 on: September 17, 2014, 12:07:52 PM »
It seems from your graphics that the BEST OS9 machine is the 100 MHz bus Sawtooth@2000. Even having 100MHz bus.
It could be fun to make same test with reversed graphics cards, I mean the 8500 on the MDD@1.5 and the "modern" Ti on the Sawtooth...Maybe the AGPx2 and ADC type AGP do not let you reverse that to test. Zen @PowerPCLiberation use GeForce 6200 on Sawtooth but on Tiger/Leopard/Debian
http://powerpcliberation.blogspot.ca/p/authors.html
 
Looking for MacOS 9.2.4

Offline Syntho

  • Platinum Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 849
Re: Let1kWindowsBloom: check the cholesterol of your Mac.
« Reply #3 on: September 17, 2014, 12:38:01 PM »
It went down to 11 seconds when I switched the colors from Thousands to 256.

Offline MacTron

  • Global Moderator
  • Platinum Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1918
  • keep it simple
Re: Let1kWindowsBloom: check the cholesterol of your Mac.
« Reply #4 on: September 17, 2014, 12:38:08 PM »
It seems from your graphics that the BEST OS9 machine is the 100 MHz bus Sawtooth@2000. Even having 100MHz bus.
Well... not really. The bus is overclocked to 120 Mhz. It has a DIP switch. It even work at 133 Mhz, but it gives me problems when OpenGL is used ?

I've never really used it but for speed test. LOL

I always told the same: despite the test results, it is way better a MDD. especially the 1.25 single, overclocked to 1.50.

Quote
It could be fun to make same test with reversed graphics cards, I mean the 8500 on the MDD@1.5 and the "modern" Ti on the Sawtooth...Maybe the AGPx2 and ADC type AGP do not let you reverse that to test.
I've done this swap two years ago. The Ti4600 on the AGPx2 Sawtooth is a lost of time and money. And the 8500 on the MDD is indistinguishable from a stok 9000 Pro.
Please don't PM about things that are not private.

Offline IIO

  • Platinum Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1548
  • new to the forums
Re: Let1kWindowsBloom: check the cholesterol of your Mac.
« Reply #5 on: September 18, 2014, 05:18:54 AM »

i never understood system tests which mix CPU and video card results to make an index containing both things.

one of my favorite tools for a certain perspective is (of course) haxial benchmark.

it just does a basic check of RAM speed and calculates 4 different commonly used encryption processes. (and it works on 4 different operating systems)


_________________________________________________
Benchmark:         CPU & RAM
Version:           1.000
Date/Time:         18 September 2014, 02:14:40 PM
Operating System:  MacOS 10.49

Total Time:        60,719 millisecs (1:00)
Average Speed:     203.0M bytes/second

                     Time   Speed
Memory Copy:        6,102   183.5M/sec
Memory Fill:       10,544   455.2M/sec
Memory Clear:       9,642   497.8M/sec
Memory Equal:       6,650   168.4M/sec
CRC:                7,044   90.8M/sec
Quick Hash:         4,583   139.6M/sec
Secure Hash:        4,252   75.2M/sec
Encryption:        11,902   13.4M/sec
"It is true that the "pre-emptive multitasking" advantage present in OS X can be illustrated by downloading CD-ROM ISOs and rendering chaos theory formulas while simultaneously instant messaging and posting on FaceBook what you ate... but in reality, what did you create?"
- DieHard, random forum troll at macos9lives.com

Offline MacTron

  • Global Moderator
  • Platinum Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1918
  • keep it simple
Re: Let1kWindowsBloom: check the cholesterol of your Mac.
« Reply #6 on: September 19, 2014, 06:43:59 PM »
i never understood system tests which mix CPU and video card results to make an index containing both things.

The perfect benchmark soft it doesn't exist. Let1kWindowsBloom do a call to a window draw procedure (1000 really) it measure CPU, Video Card, RAM and even ROM, altogether, LOL. Plus system responsiveness. this is the main point. As most system extensions and control panels make an insert in the SO main event loop, this app can measure how damage system performance some goodies like controls bar, Kaleidoscope, etc... of course is each user who decide if something is worth or not...

In the case of Cubase sluggish, we first must know is how responsive is the overal system, If Let1kWindowsBloom give us a result of 30 sec, the problem isn't Cubase by it self, but the whole system, LOL

BTW:

_________________________________________________
Benchmark:         CPU & RAM
Version:           1.000
Date/Time:         20 September 2014, 02:05:56 AM
Operating System:  MacOS 9.22

Total Time:        40,256 millisecs (0:40)
Average Speed:     306.0M bytes/second

                     Time   Speed
Memory Copy:        4,918   227.7M/sec
Memory Fill:        6,386   751.6M/sec
Memory Clear:       6,348   756.1M/sec
Memory Equal:       6,270   178.6M/sec
CRC:                4,291   149.1M/sec
Quick Hash:         2,709   236.2M/sec
Secure Hash:        2,560   125.0M/sec
Encryption:         6,774   23.6M/sec
Please don't PM about things that are not private.

Offline IIO

  • Platinum Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1548
  • new to the forums
Re: Let1kWindowsBloom: check the cholesterol of your Mac.
« Reply #7 on: September 20, 2014, 06:19:35 AM »
wow your memory is x2 compared to my QS2002 :)
"It is true that the "pre-emptive multitasking" advantage present in OS X can be illustrated by downloading CD-ROM ISOs and rendering chaos theory formulas while simultaneously instant messaging and posting on FaceBook what you ate... but in reality, what did you create?"
- DieHard, random forum troll at macos9lives.com

Offline MacTron

  • Global Moderator
  • Platinum Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1918
  • keep it simple
Re: Let1kWindowsBloom: check the cholesterol of your Mac.
« Reply #8 on: September 20, 2014, 06:51:57 AM »
wow your memory is x2 compared to my QS2002 :)

Well... I have to confess that this test results aren't from *my* memory, but from one of my MDD's! LOL
Despite my avatar I'm not a cyborg! LOL!
Please don't PM about things that are not private.

Offline IIO

  • Platinum Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1548
  • new to the forums
Re: Let1kWindowsBloom: check the cholesterol of your Mac.
« Reply #9 on: September 20, 2014, 09:56:35 AM »

thats what i wanted to say. i would never ask you for a check of your memory, that would be too embarassing.

but i am a bit surprised that it makes such a difference. maybe i should do everything video on my dual 1250 in the future? :)
"It is true that the "pre-emptive multitasking" advantage present in OS X can be illustrated by downloading CD-ROM ISOs and rendering chaos theory formulas while simultaneously instant messaging and posting on FaceBook what you ate... but in reality, what did you create?"
- DieHard, random forum troll at macos9lives.com

supernova777

  • Guest
Re: Let1kWindowsBloom: check the cholesterol of your Mac.
« Reply #10 on: October 01, 2014, 06:19:29 PM »
will this work on 8.6 too?

Offline MacTron

  • Global Moderator
  • Platinum Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1918
  • keep it simple
Re: Let1kWindowsBloom: check the cholesterol of your Mac.
« Reply #11 on: October 02, 2014, 08:24:02 AM »
will this work on 8.6 too?

Yes, it works in 8.6. I is the better app to test the system "speed" and "response". You should try by yourself , and post here what you've found ... LOL
Please don't PM about things that are not private.

supernova777

  • Guest
Re: Let1kWindowsBloom: check the cholesterol of your Mac.
« Reply #12 on: October 02, 2014, 10:42:21 AM »
will this work on 8.6 too?

Yes, it works in 8.6. I is the better app to test the system "speed" and "response". You should try by yourself , and post here what you've found ... LOL

i will but i was busy cloning hd to many diff partitions to make ready testing os8.6 vs os9.0 vs os9.04 vs os 9.1 vs os9.21 :)

Offline Protools5LEGuy

  • Global Moderator
  • Platinum Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2059
Re: Let1kWindowsBloom: check the cholesterol of your Mac.
« Reply #13 on: October 02, 2014, 03:43:45 PM »

i will but i was busy cloning hd to many diff partitions to make ready testing os8.6 vs os9.0 vs os9.04 vs os 9.1 vs os9.21 :)

No Sarah test  :'( :-[ :(

You have left behind 8.7...  :P :D
http://macintoshgarden.org/apps/mac-os-87-sarah
Looking for MacOS 9.2.4

Offline Protools5LEGuy

  • Global Moderator
  • Platinum Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2059
Re: Let1kWindowsBloom: check the cholesterol of your Mac.
« Reply #14 on: May 03, 2016, 09:02:32 PM »
I have made this post sticky. (And some more).
Looking for MacOS 9.2.4

Offline Jakl

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 301
Re: Let1kWindowsBloom: check the cholesterol of your Mac.
« Reply #15 on: May 04, 2016, 03:35:48 AM »
G4 MDD DUAL@1.42Ghz Ti4600 1920x1200 and 1344x840 etc @24bits
2.0 sec

Tried with Sata HD using Seritek Sata card. Tried with Ata100 bus. Same result.

Tried Same computer in Classic OS9 in 10.4.11 result was 9 seconds.
Varied monitor resolutions with no difference in result.

So can we say that results suggest a approximate 4x slowdown or speedup between Classic OS9 running in 10.4.11 and Raw Mac OS9 in a MDD DUAL 1.42Ghz Ti4600.

By the way this Computer was one of my MDD FW800 computers zapped firmware to boot MacOS9.

Offline Protools5LEGuy

  • Global Moderator
  • Platinum Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2059
Re: Let1kWindowsBloom: check the cholesterol of your Mac.
« Reply #16 on: May 04, 2016, 10:04:16 AM »
Jakl, you have the best Mac OS 9 machine without entering in M.A.R.L. pitstop.  ;D

Is your seritek 1s2 or 1s4?

I am ashamed of showing my results on dual GHz and 867 dual.
Looking for MacOS 9.2.4

Offline ovalking

  • Consistant Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 59
  • new to the forums
Re: Let1kWindowsBloom: check the cholesterol of your Mac.
« Reply #17 on: May 04, 2016, 01:11:31 PM »
I've been playing with this utility for a while, so have built up a little collection of results. It's just a bit of fun really.
I conclude Nubus Macs do really badly at this test, while OS8.6+ slows things down.
The poor results of the early G4s are odd.

G4 933 9.2.2 - 4
PBG4 800 9.2.2 - 4
G3 350 8.6 - 7
G3 350 9.2.2 - 7
G4 466 9.2.2 - 8
PBG3 500 9.2.2 - 8
G4 400 8.6 - 9
G3 266 9.2.2 - 10
iMac G3 500 9.2 - 10
8500 G3 8.1 - 12
iBook 300 9.2.2 - 14
9500/200 8.1 - 16
9500 G3 7.6.1 - 16
9500/200 7.5.5 - 20
8500 G3 8.6 - 23
9500 G3 9.1 - 27
7500/200 7.5.5 - 30
G4 400 9.2 - 33
7100/80 7.5.5 - 56
8100 G3 8.1 - 58
6100/66 8.1 - 63
Q800 PPC 7.5.5 - 87
6100/66 7.5.5 - 97
G4 466 10.2.8 Classic - 216

Offline Jakl

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 301
Re: Let1kWindowsBloom: check the cholesterol of your Mac.
« Reply #18 on: May 08, 2016, 05:20:17 AM »
Jakl, you have the best Mac OS 9 machine without entering in M.A.R.L. pitstop.  ;D

Is your seritek 1s2 or 1s4?

I am ashamed of showing my results on dual GHz and 867 dual.
I have the Seritek 1eSE2 card.
It is a great machine - can get pretty hot with the dual 1.42 Ghz processors. Mactron does have the better times with 1.8s and 1.5s - amazing speeds.

Offline Protools5LEGuy

  • Global Moderator
  • Platinum Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2059
Re: Let1kWindowsBloom: check the cholesterol of your Mac.
« Reply #19 on: May 08, 2016, 11:16:34 AM »
Digital Audio (Original 466) with QS'02 GHz dual CPU. 1 Gig Ram + GeForce 4 MX 32Megs + Digi 001 + AP 24/96 at 1280x1024

With VNC open, stuffit helper + A-Dock showing dock + 4-6 windows open + DragThing :  9 seconds

Just Finder with A-Dock hide in Millions Colors: 3 Seconds

Just Finder with A-Dock hide in Thousands Colors: 3 Seconds

Just Finder with A-Dock hide in 256 Colors : 2 Seconds

With VNC open, stuffit helper + A-Dock hide dock +  DragThing  in 256 Colors :  6 seconds

With VNC open,  A-Dock hide dock +  DragThing  in 256 Colors :  6 seconds

With VNC open,  A-Dock hide dock  in 256 Colors :  6 seconds

With VNC open, stuffit helper + A-Dock hide dock + no windows open+ DragThing in Millions colors:  6 seconds
« Last Edit: May 08, 2016, 12:08:32 PM by Protools5LEGuy »
Looking for MacOS 9.2.4

Offline Protools5LEGuy

  • Global Moderator
  • Platinum Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2059
Re: Let1kWindowsBloom: check the cholesterol of your Mac.
« Reply #20 on: May 08, 2016, 08:08:29 PM »
MDD 866 dual 2 Gigs of RAM. Asus Geforce 2 MX 64 Megs. Audiomedia III. No color depth options(missing panel).

VNC + dragthing + stuffit helper: 8 seconds

Just Finder +dragthing + stuffit helper : 6 seconds


iMac G3 350 Indigo 256 MByte. ATI Rage 128 PRO 8 Mb

Millions of colors 14 seconds

Thousands of colors 10 seconds

256 colors: 9 seconds
Looking for MacOS 9.2.4

Offline urdvurk

  • Active Member
  • **
  • Posts: 23
  • new to the forums
Re: Let1kWindowsBloom: check the cholesterol of your Mac.
« Reply #21 on: September 12, 2016, 03:22:45 PM »
Quicksilver 733MHz @ 867MHz, Geforce2 MX 32MB: 5.18 seconds. Color depth did not make a difference?
Extensions off: 8.82 seconds.

Offline MacTron

  • Global Moderator
  • Platinum Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1918
  • keep it simple
Re: Let1kWindowsBloom: check the cholesterol of your Mac.
« Reply #22 on: September 13, 2016, 08:06:51 AM »
Quicksilver 733MHz @ 867MHz, Geforce2 MX 32MB: 5.18 seconds. Color depth did not make a difference?
Extensions off: 8.82 seconds.

Yes, with a lower color depth you will obtain a better result. If you start with extensions Off, The video acceleration is disabled. That's why you obtain a worse result.
Please don't PM about things that are not private.

Offline urdvurk

  • Active Member
  • **
  • Posts: 23
  • new to the forums
Re: Let1kWindowsBloom: check the cholesterol of your Mac.
« Reply #23 on: September 13, 2016, 12:37:53 PM »
That makes sense, but I meant that with mine it did not make a difference. I tried millions, thousands and 256 colors, got low 5s in all three. Probably something else being the bottleneck, the processor maybe?

Offline Knezzen

  • Platinum Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 720
  • Pro Tools addict!
    • Macintosh Garden
Re: Let1kWindowsBloom: check the cholesterol of your Mac.
« Reply #24 on: September 17, 2016, 04:52:24 AM »
Getting this on my 1GHZ PowerBook G4 Titanium. 1GB RAM, ATi Mobility Radeon 9000 64mb, 32GB KingSpec SSD. Stock OS9 ATi extensions. Running 1280x854@24bit.


Code: [Select]
Total time to create and dispose 1000 windows: 6 seconds (6630934 microseconds)
« Last Edit: September 17, 2016, 05:03:10 AM by Knezzen »

Offline torvan

  • Consistant Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 70
  • Old School
Re: Let1kWindowsBloom: check the cholesterol of your Mac.
« Reply #25 on: May 04, 2017, 11:03:06 PM »
iMac G4/700 mhz, 768 MB RAM.

16 seconds but also with Classilla, BBEdit, iTunes, and Photoshop7 running.
8 seconds with just Classilla up.

1024 x 768 32MB.

Offline MacFiles

  • Vault Members
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4
  • New Member
Re: Let1kWindowsBloom: check the cholesterol of your Mac.
« Reply #26 on: May 18, 2017, 02:25:23 PM »
Captcha post #4...