BEST OS FOR IBOOK G3/500MHZ/384MB??
in [Mac Systems]
|
From: Geoffrey S. Mendelson on 4 Jan 2010 07:24 abpp wrote: > I know 10.3 is better than 10.2, and 10.4 better than 10.3, but this > is an old (2001) > iBook G3/500mhz with DVD and only 384 MB of RAM that will not be > upgraded for > some time. So, which one would give me the less sluggishness for this > configuration: > 10.2, 10.3, or 10.4??? It's not a matter of slugishness, it's a mater of ability to do what you asked. Quite simpley you won't be able to access the Disney.com web page with a browser that runs on anything less than Tiger. It will crash, hang up or render the pages incorrectly. Not much of a loss, IMHO, but the flash videos which are all over the sight, won't play anyway. You won't be able to find a current flash player, and if you could the computer will be too slow to decode them. To answer your question anyway, with 384M of RAM, Tiger will be faster than anything before it. Each release of MacOS has had it's minimum memory needed increased, but it's performance with that minimum or near it, has gotten better. Geoff. -- Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel gsm(a)mendelson.com N3OWJ/4X1GM New word I coined 12/13/09, "Sub-Wikipedia" adj, describing knowledge or understanding, as in he has a sub-wikipedia understanding of the situation. i.e possessing less facts or information than can be found in the Wikipedia.
From: Erik Richard Sørensen on 4 Jan 2010 11:50 JF Mezei wrote: > I had 10.4 on my 350mhz G3. Can't remember how much RAM it had. You can > find cheap RAM on the internet if you woish to boost it. > > Maximum disk size for that vintage is 128gigs. I bought a 160 gig drive > and it showed up as 128 gig. Eeh? - We're not talking about desktops but about a 500mhz iBook... I have never heard that neither the Pismo 500 nor the iBook 500mhz had the 128gb limit. I replaced the ordinary 60gb disk with a TravelStar 160gb and it showed all the space - partitined 60+100gb for OS 9.2.x and OS X 10.4.11. I still needed (and still does) the OS 9.x bootability and so did he, who I sold it to 2 years ago... cheers, Erik Richard -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Erik Richard Sørensen, Member of ADC, <mac-manNOSP(a)Mstofanet.dk> NisusWriter - The Future In Multilingual Text Processing - www.nisus.com OpenOffice.org - The Modern Productivity Solution - www.openoffice.org ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: abpp on 4 Jan 2010 13:48 Ok. I'll upgrade to 10.3 since I don't really think 10.4 will cut it with this little machine, and 10.2 seems too slow now. Thanks! On Jan 4, 7:24 am, "Geoffrey S. Mendelson" <g...(a)cable.mendelson.com> wrote: > abpp wrote: > > I know 10.3 is better than 10.2, and 10.4 better than 10.3, but this > > is an old (2001) > > iBook G3/500mhz with DVD and only 384 MB of RAM that will not be > > upgraded for > > some time. So, which one would give me the less sluggishness for this > > configuration: > > 10.2, 10.3, or 10.4??? > > It's not a matter of slugishness, it's a mater of ability to do what you asked. > > Quite simpley you won't be able to access the Disney.com web page with a > browser that runs on anything less than Tiger. It will crash, hang up or > render the pages incorrectly. Not much of a loss, IMHO, but the flash videos > which are all over the sight, won't play anyway. > > You won't be able to find a current flash player, and if you could the > computer will be too slow to decode them. > > To answer your question anyway, with 384M of RAM, Tiger will be faster than > anything before it. Each release of MacOS has had it's minimum memory needed > increased, but it's performance with that minimum or near it, has gotten better. > > Geoff. > > -- > Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel g...(a)mendelson.com N3OWJ/4X1GM > New word I coined 12/13/09, "Sub-Wikipedia" adj, describing knowledge or > understanding, as in he has a sub-wikipedia understanding of the situation. > i.e possessing less facts or information than can be found in the Wikipedia.
From: isw on 4 Jan 2010 14:43 In article <slrnhk3n68.9oc.gsm(a)cable.mendelson.com>, "Geoffrey S. Mendelson" <gsm(a)cable.mendelson.com> wrote: > abpp wrote: > > I know 10.3 is better than 10.2, and 10.4 better than 10.3, but this > > is an old (2001) > > iBook G3/500mhz with DVD and only 384 MB of RAM that will not be > > upgraded for > > some time. So, which one would give me the less sluggishness for this > > configuration: > > 10.2, 10.3, or 10.4??? > > It's not a matter of slugishness, it's a mater of ability to do what you > asked. > > Quite simpley you won't be able to access the Disney.com web page with a > browser that runs on anything less than Tiger. It will crash, hang up or > render the pages incorrectly. Not much of a loss, IMHO, but the flash videos > which are all over the sight, won't play anyway. > > You won't be able to find a current flash player, and if you could the > computer will be too slow to decode them. > > To answer your question anyway, with 384M of RAM, Tiger will be faster than > anything before it. Each release of MacOS has had it's minimum memory needed > increased, but it's performance with that minimum or near it, has gotten > better. I have 10.4 on a 400 MHz Pismo with 128 MB of RAM. Totally stable, but a bit sluggish when changing context. As others have said, 10.4 is faster and smaller than it's predecessors. Isaac
From: isw on 4 Jan 2010 14:47
In article <4b41ae21$0$4805$ba624c82(a)nntp02.dk.telia.net>, Erik Richard S�rensen <NOSPAM(a)NOSPAM.dk> wrote: > When/if you 'strip' the installation this way, I guarantee that you will > get one of the fastest 500mhz 10.4.x G3 machines at all - even with only > 384mb of RAM! Now I'm curious: why does leaving all those extra languages and printer drivers off the disk make the machine go faster? Can I just go in and delete them at any time, or do I have to reinstall? I have a 400 MHz Pismo that could be more useful if it was a bit more speedy. Isaac |