tiger

Discussion in 'macOS' started by dukebound85, Jul 18, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. dukebound85 macrumors P6

    dukebound85

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2005
    Location:
    5045 feet above sea level
    #1
    I have a question. I currently have an emac 1ghz 512mb ram and 80 gig hd running 10.2.8. Now my question is I am considering tiger as an upgrade but am not sure if it is wise. My concerns are would my system be able to run it well, not just run it but smoothly like 10.2.8 as of now. Also, are the improvements in tiger over jaguar worth the $129. I can get by with jaguar but I am tempted with tiger. Or should I just opt for Panther? Any advce would be greatly appreciated.
     
  2. ITASOR macrumors 601

    ITASOR

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2005
    Location:
    Oneida, NY
    #2
    Tiger runs like a dream on my 933Mhz Quicksilver, so it should run just as good on your eMac. You will notice that anything above Jaguar is faster. Panther and up also have exposé, which will help you alot!
     
  3. neocell macrumors 65816

    neocell

    Joined:
    May 23, 2005
    Location:
    Great White North
    #3
    I'm using a 1GHz iMac, I image they're very similar in performance (768 MB, 80GB), and Tiger is soooooo much better (faster) than Panther, though I think by 10.3.9, Panther was pretty good. I really like the tabbed browsing in Safari with Tiger as well as the better Mail (though uglier) and Spotlight is pretty cool. So all in all, very glad for updating to Tiger from Panther, and man I don't know how I'd use a computer without Exposé. I look like a nervous freak at work continually sliding the mouse to the upper left corner on the Win PC, obviously without the desired result. You gotta update, all the way
     
  4. snickelfritz macrumors 65816

    snickelfritz

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2003
    Location:
    Tucson AZ
    #4
    Tiger is a monumental upgrade from Jaguar!
    IMO, OSX didn't really start feeling ready for prime time until the release of Panther.
    You're in for a treat! Do a clean installation.

    GL
     
  5. FadeToBlack macrumors 68000

    FadeToBlack

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2005
    Location:
    Accoville, WV
    #5
    I think you should go for it! Tiger runs great on my eMac. (specs in sig)
     
  6. devilot Moderator emeritus

    devilot

    Joined:
    May 1, 2005
    #6
    My PB (in sig) is a bit faster than your emac but I don't know if it's a sizeable difference-- Tiger runs very well. And having used Panther (came w/ my PB) and Tiger (on my iMac) I was enamored and HAD to get Tiger for my PB, too. :p I say if you're going to spring for a new OS you might as well go for Tiger rather than Panther.
     
  7. Mitthrawnuruodo Moderator emeritus

    Mitthrawnuruodo

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2004
    Location:
    Bergen, Norway
    #7
    Tiger runs very well on my iBook G4@800. Much better than 10.3.x. I've never actually had 10.2.x on this machine, but Tiger also runs great on a Pismo (G3@400), and I've tried 10.1, 10.2, 10.3 and 10.4 on it and, I have no idea how Apple manages to do it, but every upgrade has been to the better. The OS actually runs and, that's maybe even more important, feels faster and better for each upgrade.
     
  8. mad jew Moderator emeritus

    mad jew

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2004
    Location:
    Adelaide, Australia
    #8
    Jaguar, not Tiger. Oops.


    I second that. I've got the same laptop as Mitthrawnuruodo (no we don't share it, they've just got similar specs) and I've noticed only improvements over Panther. Considering most people considered Panther a massive improvement over Jaguar, you should be fine. Speed-wise, my iBook is now faster too, albeit only slightly.
     
  9. neocell macrumors 65816

    neocell

    Joined:
    May 23, 2005
    Location:
    Great White North
    #9
    Did you mean Tiger over Panther?? Or do you think the general populous thinks Panther is better than Tiger? I think it was probably just a typo since everyone in this thread seems to think that Tiger is better.
     
  10. Heb1228 macrumors 68020

    Heb1228

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2004
    Location:
    Virginia Beach, VA
    #10
    With Tiger at 10.4.2, there's little reason not to go all the way. Tiger is great.
     
  11. mad jew Moderator emeritus

    mad jew

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2004
    Location:
    Adelaide, Australia
    #11

    Sorry, thanks for the nudge neocell. I meant Panther was a massive upgrade over Jaguar.
     
  12. dukebound85 thread starter macrumors P6

    dukebound85

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2005
    Location:
    5045 feet above sea level
    #12
    Ok thanks for the help. Now I am considering the family pack for tiger. My other computer is an imac dv special edition with a g3 processor 13 gighd and 256mb of ram. Would this run tiger well? or will it be a pain? It is running jag 10.2.8 as of now. Thanks
     
  13. neocell macrumors 65816

    neocell

    Joined:
    May 23, 2005
    Location:
    Great White North
    #13
    Yeah, I completely agree with you. I first (well besides in classes at school) starting using macs when 10.0 came out. It was cool. I had the opportunity to buy 3 computers as long as two were macs (and to try to keep it under the 10K $$). So two iMacs and a Dell (oops) later I was able to try them (OSX vs XP) out side by side, and hands down (after 12 years of DOS and Windows) I turned into a Mac lover. Bought my own iMac when 10.2 came out and really liked it, but man with Panther, that was it. I couldn't get enough. Exposé had me hook, line and sinker. Probably the most often thing I use. Tiger is pretty good too, but most of the benefits for myself are in the apps and not the OS per se, but still a good update.
     
  14. FadeToBlack macrumors 68000

    FadeToBlack

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2005
    Location:
    Accoville, WV
    #14
    Get the Family Pack. Tiger should run fine on the iMac. I just installed Panther on my Lombard today and it runs it great with 333MHz and 320MB RAM.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page