10.3 or 10.4

Discussion in 'macOS' started by Time Clock, Feb 28, 2007.

  1. Time Clock macrumors member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2004
    Location:
    Hemet, CA
    #1
    I have an iBook year 2001 model (500 mhz G3 flavor) running 10.2.8. I was thinking about upgrading OS X, but am undecided as to which version to get. I realize that either way, my iBook won't be a speed demon or anything, and I'm perfectly okay with that. However, I would like to know which version would be the best for my computer. I'm not even going to consider Leopard because it would probably kill my computer somehow.

    It would be nice to more compatible with the outside world. Heck, I would finally be able to run my Nano from my own computer.

    Thanks for the advice.
     
  2. mrkramer macrumors 603

    mrkramer

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Location:
    Somewhere
    #2
    how much RAM do you have? because that would make a major difference in the speed.
     
  3. flyinmac macrumors 68030

    flyinmac

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2006
    Location:
    United States
    #3
    Hello,

    You should be fine with either version. But, OS X 10.3 requires 128 MB of RAM (which you likely already have if you are using 10.2.x).

    However, OS 10.4 requires 256 MB of RAM. So, that might be the decision maker right there if you are unwilling to invest in more memory.

    If the memory is available, I would go with OS 10.4.x just for the simple fact that it will run more current programs, and remain able to do so for a greater period of time.

    But, if running current apps is not an issue, then 10.3.x would be fine.

    I had previously had to step down to 10.3 for a while. I sold an iMac G5 that had 10.4.x on it. And, had to go back to my mini with 10.3.x. Well, I got by just fine. But, I did miss two things primarily:

    1) Safari 2.0 (I just got accustomed to tabbed browsing and PDF support built-in).

    2) The Dashboard. It's amazing how attached you get to widgets.

    Aside from those two things, I didn't miss Tiger one bit.

    Issue one (Safari) can easily be made-up for with FireFox 2.x. FireFox is great. I just prefer Safari (although I haven't been able to figure out why).

    But, I do use FireFox periodically, and I like it. I just prefer Safari for some reason.

    So, there you go, if you don't care about either of those two issues, I don't think you'll see any major difference between 10.3 and 10.4. I didn't (and I really wanted to).

    I did eventually come-up with a reason to purchase OS 10.4 for my Mini though. I got it for $40 from someone who wanted to unload it, and came up with some unprovable reason to justify the cost from our budget.

    But, aside from the two reasons provided above, the only real reason I could offer you to make Tiger worth any additional money would be the likeliness that Tiger (10.4.x) will be able to run newer programs for a greater period of time in the future. Several programs already require 10.4.x at minimum. But, then there are a lot of programs already available that will run fine on 10.3.

    So, that should be your primary consideration. Are you happy to keep using what you can already get today? If so, consider 10.3.

    Are you going to want to run newer titles that may require 10.4.x or later? If so, get 10.4.

    I hope this helps.
     
  4. Time Clock thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2004
    Location:
    Hemet, CA
    #4
    Well, in terms of RAM, when my dad bought the computer, he splurged on 256 MB (that was quite a bit back in the day), so I'm covered in that sense, although I suppose that finding a 512 stick somewhere might be a good idea, or will it? Does it even matter at this point in terms of speed, or is the biggest bottleneck in my case the G3?

    In terms of newer programs, the only thing that I can really see me wanting are newer versions of iLife (iMovie 2 is really limited nowadays) since any way, shape, or form of Final Cut would be murder on my iBook.

    I guess I'll wait until Leopard comes out to see how the prices fall on the older OSes and if Tiger is within my budget, I might just splurge for it instead of Jaguar.
     
  5. mrkramer macrumors 603

    mrkramer

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Location:
    Somewhere
    #5
    If you get Tiger I would make sure to get as much RAM as possible. You can run it on 256MB but from what I have heard it doesn't run well with that little.
     
  6. flyinmac macrumors 68030

    flyinmac

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2006
    Location:
    United States
    #6
    Well, you won't get any great performance out of 256 MB of RAM with Tiger. That is the minimum. But, more would definitely be better.

    I have 288 MB in my iMac G3 running at 333 MHz, and that is performing just fine with OS 10.3. No real complaints there. Speed is fine.

    I think that the G3 would likely keep-up fine. But, the memory is likely to pose a bit of a limitation. I'd go with 512 MB as a minimum if you decide to use Tiger. The more the better.

    Of course, a faster processor would help. But, there's no reason to give it two bottlenecks. If you can give it more memory, then you should.

    Of course, if the cost of your upgrades brings you near the price of a mini, then I'd go that route.
     
  7. Time Clock thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2004
    Location:
    Hemet, CA
    #7
    I was looking online for a new 512 stick and realized that they are expensive for what you get. Is buying on ebay a bad thing if I wanted RAM? Can I find a reliable seller of computer parts on the world's largest swap meet?
     
  8. flyinmac macrumors 68030

    flyinmac

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2006
    Location:
    United States
    #8
    Macs are very particular about memory. A module that works just fine in a PC, may not work reliably in a Mac.

    I've also found that the installation routines in OS X are even more particular about memory than OS X is once it's installed.

    Memory that will pass Apple's hardware test, and work fine most of the time in OS X, will still cause OS X to fail installation.

    So, you really should buy your memory from a place that knows Macs, and will certify that it will work in your specific machine.

    For that purpose, I have found the best guarantee and customer experience from Other World Computing. I've used their memory in around a dozen systems, and have yet to find a single problem.

    http://www.macsales.com

    They know their stuff, they are great to work with both before and after the sale, and I've just been a very happy customer.

    The extra you pay from a place that knows their stuff can pay-off big when you compare it against your options when something goes wrong with an e-bay auction.

    Personally, I would never buy memory from an auction (or even second-hand), unless it was priced so cheap that I could throw it away without feeling upset about it.

    Memory is one of those things that can come in varying qualities. And, even if there's nothing wrong with it, it may still not get along with your Mac. And, beyond that, it is (like any other electronic component) easily damaged by improper handling (such as static discharge). Don't buy your memory second-hand unless you get it cheap enough that you consider it disposable.

    If you do buy it second-hand, make sure you are absolutely confident that the seller will guarantee it to work when it arrives and refund your money if it doesn't. And, don't pay anywhere near retail price for it.
     
  9. thejadedmonkey macrumors 604

    thejadedmonkey

    Joined:
    May 28, 2005
    Location:
    Pa
    #9
    Safari in 10.3 has tabs, you just need to enable them!
     
  10. flyinmac macrumors 68030

    flyinmac

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2006
    Location:
    United States
    #10
    You are absolutely correct. It's been a while since I did much in that version of Safari.

    I do remember what it was that I missed about Safari 2.0 now. It was the RSS feeds. That's what I had gotten accustomed to.

    I like having all my news just pop-up with a single click. I scan the titles, and click on anything that sounds interesting.

    I get all my news and even software update notices that way.

    So, yes, Safari 1.x did have tabs. I guess I just forgot which feature it was that I missed :eek:

    I remember I started using a separate RSS program to make-up for it. But, it was never quite the same. I was very happy when I was able to get back to Safari 2.x and had my RSS feeds the way I liked them.
     

Share This Page