Prev: Power Manager problems with 10.6.3?
Next: Guy Kewney has died
From: Peter Ceresole on 8 Apr 2010 13:39
Dr Geoff Hone <gnhone(a)globalnet.co.uk> wrote:

> Take a look at Eudora.com.
> They are still making available their older versions back to about
> 2002 (and for both OS X and Classic).

6.2.4, the last Eudora version, runs superbly on all OS10 versions,
including 10.2.
--
Peter
From: Rowland McDonnell on 8 Apr 2010 19:10
David Empson <dempson(a)actrix.gen.nz> wrote:

> David Kennedy <davidkennedy(a)nospamherethankyou.invalid> wrote:
>
> > Andrew wrote:
> > >
> > > Is there anything obvious that I've missed?
> > > Is the fact that the system is years out of date a potential problem?
> > > If it is, what could I most usefully update to bearing in mind this is
> > > an old laptop (I think probably a G3 600 (?) with not much in the way
> > > of RAM)?
> >
> > Provided that the system is up to date - latest 10.2.x version 10.2.9? -
>
> 10.2.8 was the final update for 10.2.

I'd not want to use any MacOS X version prior to 10.4.11 these days.
10.2.8 was pretty damned funky, but also flaky and under-developed.

I had reason to boot into it not so long ago and oh boy the things that
were missing back then...

10.3 was a lot better. 10.4 better yet - but boringly bland compared to
10.2, interface-wise.

> > then receiving e mail shouldn't be a problem unless someone has tried to
> > install a new(er) version of whatever is being used for email. Browsing
> > etc. is a different matter as some older browsers simply will not
> > provide all the security you might want.
>
> Given "not much RAM" and "G3 600", it will run 10.3 without requiring
> any more memory, but that is only going to bring it to a somewhat more
> recent level of obsolete.
>
> It should be able to run 10.4, but will probably need a memory upgrade.

I use 10.4.11 on a 768MB 1GHz G4 iMac. That's enough RAM. More'd be
good, mind...

But: does 10.4 really need that much more RAM than 10.3?

Rowland.

--
Remove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell(a)dog.physics.org
Sorry - the spam got to me
http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk
UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking
From: David Empson on 8 Apr 2010 20:03
Peter Ceresole <peter(a)cara.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> David Empson <dempson(a)actrix.gen.nz> wrote:
>
> > Given "not much RAM" and "G3 600", it will run 10.3 without requiring
> > any more memory, but that is only going to bring it to a somewhat more
> > recent level of obsolete.
>
> Still... I have a 663 TiBook running 10.3.9, and it's not bad at all.

Those I know in my user group who are still on 10.3.9 are getting
increasingly frustrated with it. Safari 1.3.x crashes on many web sites,
and no compatible version of Firefox is available, seriously limiting
choice of web browser.

Most new applications and many peripherals aren't compatible with 10.3.9
or earlier.

Lack of security updates is a concern. Even 10.4.11 is now in that boat.

(There is a possibility of further Safari updates for 10.4.11, which
include selected security fixes, but I expect we are very close to the
point that Apple will stop supporting 10.4.11 in all future updates, and
that point may have been reached given no QuickTime 7.6.6 for Tiger.)

--
David Empson
dempson(a)actrix.gen.nz
From: David Empson on 8 Apr 2010 20:58
Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote:

> David Empson <dempson(a)actrix.gen.nz> wrote:
>
> > Given "not much RAM" and "G3 600", it will run 10.3 without requiring
> > any more memory, but that is only going to bring it to a somewhat more
> > recent level of obsolete.
> >
> > It should be able to run 10.4, but will probably need a memory upgrade.
>
> I use 10.4.11 on a 768MB 1GHz G4 iMac. That's enough RAM. More'd be
> good, mind...
>
> But: does 10.4 really need that much more RAM than 10.3?

In 10.4, the minimum RAM requirement doubled (from 128 MB to 256 MB).

My main computer at the time (667 MHz PowerBook G4) had 768 MB already,
and I found that was reasonable for 10.4. My dual 1 GHz PowerMac G4 was
OK with only 512 MB (now upgraded to its maximum 1.5 GB).

I've used 10.4 on other computers with 256 to 384 MB, and it is sluggish
even if you don't run much. 512 MB is a more reasonable minimum.

10.3 is comfortable with somewhat less than 512 MB.

A 600 MHz iBook G3 is upgradeable to 640 MB. If the set of running
applications was kept to a minimum, you could probably get away with 384
MB, but I wouldn't recommend 256 MB.


I like to work on the principle that if you are already on the verge of
needing more memory (as measured by virtual memory swapping activity for
your "normal" set of applications, not including occasional tasks), then
when upgrading the OS you should also upgrade the memory by at least the
amount the minimum increased.

Even in cases where you were well clear of the virtual memory swapping
threshold, the same rule is a good idea to maintain your expected level
of performance. More memory is always better.

That suggests adding 128 MB of RAM when upgrading from 10.3 or earlier
to 10.4, adding 256 MB of RAM when upgrading from 10.4 to 10.5, and
adding 512 MB of RAM when upgrading from 10.5 to 10.6.

When I upgraded my MacBook Pro to Snow Leopard, I already had 4 GB and
can't add more without spending an unreasonable amount of money. I've
noticed a slight increase in virtual memory activity when I run
particularly large things like Windows XP in VMware Fusion along with
all my usual applications, but I still have plenty of memory for normal
activities.

I previously had 2 GB with Leopard, and found that was verging on not
enough for my usual applications even without VMware Fusion. I expect I
would have found Snow Leopard painful with only 2 GB of RAM.

It all depends on the applications you want to run simultaneously and
how much memory they use.
--
David Empson
dempson(a)actrix.gen.nz
From: Peter Ceresole on 8 Apr 2010 21:11
David Empson <dempson(a)actrix.gen.nz> wrote:

> > Still... I have a 663 TiBook running 10.3.9, and it's not bad at all.
>
> Those I know in my user group who are still on 10.3.9 are getting
> increasingly frustrated with it. Safari 1.3.x crashes on many web sites,
> and no compatible version of Firefox is available, seriously limiting
> choice of web browser.

I'm running Firefox on it- I agree that Safari for 10.3.9 is dire, and I
never used it- and whatever version of Firefox it is- the machine isn't
here, so I forget- it works quite effectively enough.

For emailing with Eudora, basic browsing and booking tickets etc, which
was the original brief, it works fine.
--
Peter
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
Prev: Power Manager problems with 10.6.3?
Next: Guy Kewney has died