Prev: Power Manager problems with 10.6.3?
Next: Guy Kewney has died
From: Rowland McDonnell on 8 Apr 2010 22:27
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 Is the fact that the system is years out of date a potential problem?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.

Just looked - there seem to have been two security updates and maybe a
Java security update after 10.2.8 came out.

Software Update should sort 'em out for you.

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: Rowland McDonnell on 8 Apr 2010 22:54
David Empson <dempson(a)actrix.gen.nz> wrote:

> 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.

Sounds reasonable.

> 10.3 is comfortable with somewhat less than 512 MB.

Righto.

> 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.

Uhuh.

[snip]

> 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.

I had to lose 2.5GB upgrading from 10.4 to 10.6 - 4GB down from 6.5GB.

> 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.

4GB isn't enough for normal activities here, but normal activities
include handling A4 24 bit 1200 dpi scans.

> 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.

And how big the files you're going to be using are.

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 9 Apr 2010 02:07
Peter Ceresole <peter(a)cara.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> 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-

Presumably 2.0.0.20, which was the last version that supported 10.3.9.

Mozilla stopped distrbuting Firefox 2 some time in 2009 (at least from
anywhere obvious on their web site), so anyone who doesn't have it would
need to find a copy from elsewhere (with attendant risks).

That version was released in December 2008, and it is at risk of any
unknown security issues that may have been fixed in more recent versions
of Firefox.

Firefox 3.x requires 10.4.

Firefox 4.x will require 10.5.

> 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.

--
David Empson
dempson(a)actrix.gen.nz
From: Dr Geoff Hone on 9 Apr 2010 05:14
On Fri, 9 Apr 2010 03:27:10 +0100,
real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid (Rowland McDonnell) wrote:


>Not so with Eudora v3, which I had to give up on because it became
>impossible to set it up with most available mail servers. I forget the
>details.

Funny that you should say that ...
It was Eudora v.3 lite that got me hooked on Eudora - way back in
1994 - running on a range of machines/systems. For POP3 mail I have
not found anything I like better. Set it up for a lot of people, and
only stopped using it at work when POP3 was ended, and Windoze systems
with Outlook became mandatory.
Geoff
From: Peter Ceresole on 9 Apr 2010 05:55
Dr Geoff Hone <gnhone(a)globalnet.co.uk> wrote:

> It was Eudora v.3 lite that got me hooked on Eudora - way back in
> 1994 - running on a range of machines/systems. For POP3 mail I have
> not found anything I like better.

Snap. Except that I started with 1.5.3 (I think) and, not having an
employer to get in the way, still use 6.2.4.

Steve Dorner is some kind of hero of mine. To get it so right...

'Waste cycles drawing trendy 3-D junk' is probably the sweetest prefs
setting I have seen.
--
Peter
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
Prev: Power Manager problems with 10.6.3?
Next: Guy Kewney has died