jaguar on old iMac?

[Stilly]

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?

[Laukev7]

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.

[Pissed_Macman]

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 If you have an out of date computer don't expect to be able to use an OS that is not out of date.

[Fett101]

That's funny. MS get's all sortsa shit for that.

[trc3]

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.

[Pissed_Macman]

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 ]

[Pissed_Macman]

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?

[trc3]

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.

[bossesjoe]

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

[Fett101]

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.

[Laukev7]

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.

[xyle_one]

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.

[Refalm]

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.

[Laukev7]

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?

[xyle_one]

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