Stop Microsoft
Operating Systems => macOS => Topic started by: Stilly on 18 June 2003, 08:33
-
I have an old iMac with 350mhz g3 and 320 megs of ram. Will Mac OS X 10.2 run very well with it or should I stay with 9.1?
-
The slowest Mac I have used with Mac OS 10.2 was a 450 MHz Blue Dalmatian iMac with 382 megs at school. It wasn't fast, but it was decent for simple tasks such as word processing. What you need the most when you run OS X is RAM, lots of RAM.
-
quote:
Originally posted by The Stiller:
I have an old iMac with 350mhz g3 and 320 megs of ram. Will Mac OS X 10.2 run very well with it or should I stay with 9.1?
That would be a disaster. You would age thirty years just trying to put something in the dock. If you have an out of date computer don't expect to be able to use an OS that is not out of date.
-
That's funny. MS get's all sortsa shit for that.
-
It's not going to run great, but it wont be as bad as macman said. I had 10.2 on a 400mhz g3 with 896MB and it was totally usable. I mean for internet and music and what not you should be fine. There are also a bunch of haxies to turn shadows and transparency off so it is a little faster. And now that I think about it my friend has a 300mhz beige g3 with 10.2 and he uses it everyday. He only uses it for email and music and stuff but it works just fine for him.
-
quote:
That's funny. MS get's all sortsa shit for that.
--------------------
So you're saying every single operating system that will ever be made should run on every single computer that has every been made? Seems kind of.... I dunno, unrealistic to me.
[ June 18, 2003: Message edited by: Macman: HAS 1000 POSTS ]
-
quote:
It's not going to run great, but it wont be as bad as macman said. I had 10.2 on a 400mhz g3 with 896MB and it was totally usable. I mean for internet and music and what not you should be fine. There are also a bunch of haxies to turn shadows and transparency off so it is a little faster. And now that I think about it my friend has a 300mhz beige g3 with 10.2 and he uses it everyday. He only uses it for email and music and stuff but it works just fine for him.
How is that possible? I have to use old iMacs running 8.6 at school and they are slow to the point of being unusable. How on earth could OS X run on them fine?
-
Im not saying it runs great. But if you move the swap file, turn off magnification, use diablotin to turn off unneeded start up items, shadowkiller from unsanity and don't plan on doing anything other then looking at websites and listening to music then it works fine.
-
right now I'm running 10.2 on a iMac DV with 128 megs of ram and a 400 mghz processor, its not that bad actually, I can broswe the web, play music, run some apps, final cut express lags alittle though
-
quote:
Originally posted by Macman: HAS 1000 POSTS:
[QB]
So you're saying every single operating system that will ever be made should run on every single computer that has every been made? Seems kind of.... I dunno, unrealistic to me.QB]
Nope. I'm mocking people woh want to run Windows XP on a 75mhz chip.
-
I don't know, but 350 MHz is a hefty amount for a PPC processor, compared to a 75 MHz Pentium. To make the difference even larger, a G3 is about 1.5-2.0 times faster than a pentium processor.
-
i was running jaguar on an old tangerine 300mhz ibook wih 196 megs of ram. it ran fine. of course, i wasnt trying to play games or do any inensive video editing or anything.
-
quote:
fett101: Nope. I'm mocking people woh want to run Windows XP on a 75mhz chip.
I agree. Mac users are bitching about Windows, that can't run on old machines, while Mac OS X requires at least a 400 MHz. At least Windows XP can run on a 200 MHz. It makes Windows better than Mac OS in a way...
Of course, Linux owns them both. It can run on more than just one processor-type.
-
quote:
Of course, Linux owns them both. It can run on more than just one processor-type.
Uh, Darwin is available on more than one processor. And ever heard of Marklar?
And Windows NT has been at a certain time available for PPC and Alpha processors. Get your facts straight.
So, by this logic, NetBSD "owns" Linux because it runs on almost every processor available?
-
you cannot run jaguar on anyting but ppc right now. you could get darwin and x11, but x11 is no quartz/aqua*. jagaur is only jaguar if it has aqua. to me anyways. same goes for the distros. red hat and mandrake have the same linux kernel, but they are not the same. they do things differently.
*is this correct, x11=quartz as gnome=aqua? or how does that workout
-
quote:
*is this correct, x11=quartz as gnome=aqua? or how does that workout
This is correct.
quote:
you cannot run jaguar on anyting but ppc right now.
I know that. Marklar is only a rumour. But OS X is still a UN*X. Claiming that an OS owns another because of portability is ridiculous, because this is only one detail amongst many others.
Oh, and OSX RULES!!!
-
quote:
Originally posted by Laukev7:
I know that. Marklar is only a rumour. But OS X is still a UN*X. Claiming that an OS owns another because of portability is ridiculous, because this is only one detail amongst many others.
Oh, and OSX RULES!!!
true. it is rediculous. i do not use linux because it runs on everything. i use it because of a handful of other reasons. same with jaguar. ease of use, speed, cleanliness, power, the look (yes, look is important to me), stability, downright badass'ness all-around.
-
Maybe that "multi-processor" excuse is a sign that he would dearly want OS X for PC, so that he can use it. ;)
I should know; I just love OS X, but still have a PC. But I know that it would be suicide to port Aqua.
-
dude, having high system requirements is a must now adays. Lets face it, less your running from a commandline, or using a barebones OS (Gentoo, slack, etc.) you just shouldent be expecting high eyecandy modern performance.
I have been using alot of win98 and RedHat lately, and while I don't like windowz at all (save a few nifty fetures that I give M$ credit for) I can definetly say I love how snappy and responsive stuff is. And it's not that OSX isn't snappy, it's just that it has lots of eyecandy filler stuff going on with things growing, shrinking, becomeing transparent etc. in Win98, and indeed Mac OS 9 you double click on something and up it pops.
This has become my major comlaint with OSX, not being able to turn off the eyecandy. You can do it in RedHat and Windoze, but not OSX.
Redhat it'self if is a bloated resource hog, but I like it (http://smile.gif) best, most stable linux I have ever used. OSX is still my fav. OS of all time, so don't you folks get any ideas about Psyax, Im still a total MacHead.
Just needed to do some PC programming lately.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Refalm:
I agree. Mac users are bitching about Windows, that can't run on old machines, while Mac OS X requires at least a 400 MHz. At least Windows XP can run on a 200 MHz. It makes Windows better than Mac OS in a way...
Of course, Linux owns them both. It can run on more than just one processor-type.
GET DA HELL OUTTA THE MAC SECTION WE DON"T WANT YOU HERE!!!
-
Heed his advice, Refalm, before Macman and his clan chase you, throwing spears at you.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Laukev7:
Heed his advice, Refalm, before Macman and his clan chase you, throwing spears at you.
um, i believe we are the Mac Commandos, and not the clan thank you very much :rolleyes: [/elitist mac user]
-
Has anyone ever seen Xpee running on a 200Mhz? Infact seen it running on a 1300Mhz chip? On a 1300 you can only have one window open at a time and you'd better not move those windows around!
It's all about equivalency. OS X running on a 400 mhz chip is not the same as XP running on a 400 Mhz chip, the two experiances would be very, very different. OS X on a 400Mhz chip actually works, XPeee barely works on a 1300 Mhz chip (I have an XPee test machine with this setup). All the things that Apple got right years ago Microsoft are only just starting to think about now.
Isn't it funny years ago I remmember development studios would have "a" mackintosh to "test" on. now here in 2003 I have 5 mac's 3 Linux machines and 1 windoze XP machine, to "test" on, ;)
-
quote:
Mac Commandos
I was referring to Macman's nickname.
[ June 19, 2003: Message edited by: Laukev7 ]
My turn to be elitist:
quote:
mackintosh
I never knew you could test on a raincoat.
[ June 19, 2003: Message edited by: Laukev7 ]
-
I run a small webserver off a 400mhz XP. It's not just the webserver, but also FTP, Kazaa Lite, Antivirus, Firewall, and sometimes Photoshop. And then my main Machine is a 900mhz, which often has Photoshop, SETI@Home, 1-4 Browsers, an HTML editor, and Winamp open at the same time.
Many times you XP experience depends upon you hardware setup. And RAM. Hoard the RAM.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Laukev7:
I never knew you could test on a raincoat.
[ June 19, 2003: Message edited by: Laukev7 ]
Ohh yes it's a very rewarding experiance, splash tests, drizzle test (a favourite here in the UK) and my personal fav' the Cloud burst test :D
-
quote:
Ohh yes it's a very rewarding experiance, splash tests, drizzle test (a favourite here in the UK) and my personal fav' the Cloud burst test
UK? So, you must've had a lot of practice! :D
-
i've ran 10.1 on an old 333mhz imac with 288mb ram, it wasn't fast but it was usable. don't expact to turn it into an elite maya workstation, though (http://tongue.gif)