Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Is Tiger slower than Panther?

R

riker1384

macrumors regular
Original poster
Jun 29, 2007
198
20
West Coast
I have an Emac 1 ghz with 768 MB. I installed Tiger a while back so that I could use the newer Ipods, but I have a backup disk with Panther. I recently booted up with that one, and it seemed much more snappy. Just the Finder, everything was more responsive to inputs. Has anyone else had this experience?
 
overall i found the opposite to be true. Tiger was much, much faster than Panther.

but YMMV.
 
A newer operating system will almost always require more resources to perform at similar (nevermind greater) levels than an older operating system. Compare the requirements of Tiger and Panther. There's your answer.
 
Back when I had Panther and tried to install Tiger, the latter was considerably slower in general use. I tried it on both a 1.42 G4 mini and a 1.5 G4 PowerBook. I sold the mini (still on Panther) and finally went with Tiger in the PB, and just got used to the slowness. I still think Panther was the best OS that Apple has ever built but alas, things change...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back