All along you guys were RIGHT!

Discussion in 'General Mac Discussion' started by DakotaGuy, Oct 20, 2002.

  1. macrumors 68040


    Jan 14, 2002
    South Dakota, USA
    Today I picked up 256MB of RAM and added it to one of my 64MB on my old iMac G3 400 DV and went from a total of 128MB of RAM running OSX to 320MB of RAM and WOW what a difference it made. I am still running 10.1.5 and my 10.2 is in the mail. If 10.2 helps a little more I can live with this baby for another year or more how I use it. I guess I should have just forked over the cash awhile ago and did what everyone said. If you are running an older G3 machine more RAM really helps in OSX. Thanks to all of you for helping my little machine out, I hope 10.2 helps a little as well....
  2. macrumors 65816


    Jan 3, 2002
    With extra RAM, G3s are OS X machines

    There is no reason why a G3 based machine can not run OSX effectively... it can be a bit sluggish on some iBooks but it is still more than usable.
  3. Retired


    Jul 9, 2000
    my rev a ibook with it's maxed out 160 MB of RAM will run os x, but slowly and i will put it on there when it becomes my back up mac...just for learning purposes
  4. macrumors 68030


    Jan 9, 2002
    Ha ha haaa!
    Yep, wait till you install Jaguar. I think you'll definitely be impressed. :cool:
  5. macrumors 68020


    Oct 28, 2001
    Greensboro, NC
    it may be maxed out by Apple spec...but you can drop a 512MB chip in that iBook. That'll bring you to 544MB.

    currently thes chips are less than $100
  6. macrumors 68040


    Dec 29, 2001
    very cool, glad you like your almost new feeling computer
  7. Retired


    Jul 9, 2000
    how do i do that to a rev. a ibook that maxes out at 160 mb of ram?

    i also have os 9...would changing to os x allow this rev a ibook scale to 544 mb of ram?
  8. macrumors 6502a


    Apr 14, 2002
    bat country
    i'm using 10.2 on a 500mhz imac with 384 megs and did not notice any speed improvement over 10.1.5, even after an erase and install. it boots faster and webpages scroll a little bit better, but i was not at all impressed (apps still take the same amount of time to load, interface is still the same speed). am i doing something wrong?
  9. macrumors 68000


    Dec 9, 2001
    State of Denial
    I don't know about a 512 chip, but I have a rev. A iBook, and I've installed a 256 chip. Any PC66 or PC100 SO-DIMM, half-height/low-profile (1.25" instead of 2.25") will work, despite Apple's spec. It'll even read that much under OS 9. :) The 128 MB chip was the highest capacity chip that APPLE ever made, and, consequently, the highest it officially supports. But don't worry, installing a 256 or (if they have one that fits) 512 MB chip won't void your warranty.
  10. macrumors 6502a

    Jul 12, 2001
    I have iMac 350MHz/320 MB RAM, and my beautiful maxtor 120 GB :)
    well 128 MB to 320 MB made jaguar relatively usable to me..
    Jaguar is good but there is still no real speed improvement (at least not on my imac).
    I put cd with 400 pics, finder crashes when i try to preview those files..
    I open them all with Preview and after 1 minute of spinning beachball (thumbnails disabled) i am able to preview them slowly..
    iTunes lags the whole system and everything becomes slow.
    iPhoto, iCal, Acquisition - unusable because they are too slow. (i still use acquisition tho)
    Scrolling is unresponsive and slow everywhere (cca 8 fps) - is it like that on 600+ mhz G4's also?
    switching between apps..slow
    i understand this is a slow machine.. but is all that slowness necessary? why is scrolling so slower then on os9? The UI is just too slow, wasting of resources..
    Just look at the app called KDX (simmilar to carracho) it has custom interface which shows how fast os x can be. Why, oh why cant I see my little mac shining once again? Stupid aqua, I hate it, platinum was more usable, it was the best interface ever! I enjoy working in flash with platinum, and those drop/contextual menu's are too big! Whats wrong with them?
    stupid capitalistic pigs..why cant we choose our interface? They should make SDK on making custom theme's for OS X and make it more customizable!
  11. big
    macrumors 65816


    Feb 20, 2002
    my 2cents

    With extra RAM, G3s are OS X machines...not really, not like a G4

    my B&W G3 has 704 mbs or ram, and a zif processor (500 mhz G4) from the 350 mhz G3

    THAT! made the difference. undoubtably the slow bus and unable to use quartz will be the other set back. However, I use 10.2 primarily, and only boot into 9 for heavy graphics.

    oh well, I doubt 10.2.x or 10.3 will make a difference. I wish, but I doubt it.
    though apple did it from 8 to 8.6!
  12. thread starter macrumors 68040


    Jan 14, 2002
    South Dakota, USA
    Well I upgraded to 10.2

    With the RAM upgraded to 320MB and 10.2 Jaguar, my iMac DV 400 has seen a lot of improvement. Sure it is no 1.25 Dual G4, but it does just fine for what I use it for. I think a lot of people are hard on Apple for the speed of OSX, but my computer runs it well. After two and 1/2 years however I took all the files I wanted and moved them over to my iBook and reformatted the hard drive and installed 9.2 and OSX 10.2 from the ground up. I don't know if this will also help performance, but it sure seems to run pretty dang "fluid" compared to the jerky operation of 10.1. Scolling is better for me and there is a lot less spinning "beach ball" everything has seem some improvement including iTunes, iPhoto, Mail, etc.

    When we get tough on Apple for OSX performance on older G3 machines, we should look how Windows XP runs on a 400Mhz PII. I have seen that before and I can personally say, my 400Mhz iMac does MUCH MUCH better then a 400Mhz PII does with Win XP.

Share This Page