BEST OS FOR IBOOK G3/500MHZ/384MB??
in [Mac Systems]
|
From: abpp on 3 Jan 2010 16:19 What would be better to install in an old iBook G3/500mhz with 384 MB of RAM that I have for a 6 year old (to play DVDs and browse Disney.com and such): Mac OS 10.2.x or 10.3.x??
From: Geoffrey S. Mendelson on 3 Jan 2010 17:09 abpp wrote: > What would be better to install in an old iBook G3/500mhz with 384 MB > of RAM that I have for a 6 year old (to play DVDs and browse > Disney.com and such): Mac OS 10.2.x or 10.3.x?? Tiger. It will allow you to use a recent version of Safari or Firefox to browse Disney.com, and VLC to play DVDs. It WON'T be fast enough to play the videos on the site, you may have a very frustrated child. I would not waste my time with 10.2 or 10.3 neither of which will support a new enough browser. 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: David Empson on 3 Jan 2010 20:02 Geoffrey S. Mendelson <gsm(a)cable.mendelson.com> wrote: > abpp wrote: > > What would be better to install in an old iBook G3/500mhz with 384 MB > > of RAM that I have for a 6 year old (to play DVDs and browse > > Disney.com and such): Mac OS 10.2.x or 10.3.x?? > > > Tiger. It will allow you to use a recent version of Safari or Firefox > to browse Disney.com, and VLC to play DVDs. I'd modify that slightly: Tiger (10.4) with a RAM upgrade to 640 MB to get better performance. It will be painfully sluggish with 384 MB if you are doing any significant web browsing. DVD playback should be fine on even older versions of Mac OS X (using DVD player, if VLC doesn't work), or with only 384 MB on Tiger. > It WON'T be fast enough to play the videos on the site, you may have a > very frustrated child. Agreed. (Even with a RAM upgrade.) > I would not waste my time with 10.2 or 10.3 neither of which will support a > new enough browser. Agreed. Safari 1.3.2 (Jan 2006) is having an increasing degree of compatibility problems with web sites, resulting in crashes. Firefox 2.0.0.20 (Dec 2008) was the last version which ran on 10.3.9, and it is not being distributed any more. The only current browsers I know of which still work on 10.3.9 are iCab and Opera. -- David Empson dempson(a)actrix.gen.nz
From: Erik Richard Sørensen on 3 Jan 2010 21:13 abpp wrote: > What would be better to install in an old iBook G3/500mhz with 384 MB > of RAM that I have for a 6 year old (to play DVDs and browse > Disney.com and such): Mac OS 10.2.x or 10.3.x?? I'll even recommend either 10.3.9 or 10.4.11. I've had 10.4.11 running on a 50mhz Pismo with very good results. Originally only with 384mb RAM but later upgradet to 768mb... Anyway, 10.4.x is both faster and better than 10.3.x... But you might have trouble finding a 10.4.c CD set, if you haven't a DVD drive in the iBook. - If I remember right some of them came with a CD/CD-R only and some with DVD-Read/CD-R... 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 01:37
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??? On Jan 3, 8:02 pm, demp...(a)actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) wrote: > Geoffrey S. Mendelson <g...(a)cable.mendelson.com> wrote: > > > abpp wrote: > > > What would be better to install in an old iBook G3/500mhz with 384 MB > > > of RAM that I have for a 6 year old (to play DVDs and browse > > > Disney.com and such): Mac OS 10.2.x or 10.3.x?? > > > Tiger. It will allow you to use a recent version of Safari or Firefox > > to browse Disney.com, and VLC to play DVDs. > > I'd modify that slightly: Tiger (10.4) with a RAM upgrade to 640 MB to > get better performance. It will be painfully sluggish with 384 MB if you > are doing any significant web browsing. > > DVD playback should be fine on even older versions of Mac OS X (using > DVD player, if VLC doesn't work), or with only 384 MB on Tiger. > > > It WON'T be fast enough to play the videos on the site, you may have a > > very frustrated child. > > Agreed. (Even with a RAM upgrade.) > > > I would not waste my time with 10.2 or 10.3 neither of which will support a > > new enough browser. > > Agreed. Safari 1.3.2 (Jan 2006) is having an increasing degree of > compatibility problems with web sites, resulting in crashes. Firefox > 2.0.0.20 (Dec 2008) was the last version which ran on 10.3.9, and it is > not being distributed any more. > > The only current browsers I know of which still work on 10.3.9 are iCab > and Opera. > > -- > David Empson > demp...(a)actrix.gen.nz |