Is This Right.

[waynepixel]

Ok

so my friend comes round Sunday with his Ibook G3 600Mhz laptop with 128mb & OS X 10.1 installed on it.

So I start paying around with the Ibook too see how it runs. And to my surprise it performed very well indeed, too the point that I am thinking this has better performances then my G4 PM 400Mhz AGP with about 1Gb ram and a new 32mb ATI graphics card


Can this be right. It just seem to be faster a lot faster. The hoe OS felt really snappy then my G4 PM.

Why

 

[Mr. Anderson]

I find that surprising - especially since its not even the most current version of OSX and he only had 128. You should do some tests on it and time them on the same tasks and see what you get.

Weird.

D

 

[waynepixel]

ya that what I was thinking.

But I was so surprised at how good it worked with OSX and as you say it only had 10.1 on it.

 

[King Cobra]

Your buddy might have recently refreshed the Hard Drive to get rid of any leftover material causing decreases in machine performance and what not. If you tested out his machine with OS X AND OS 9 with just 128MB of RAM and it was that fast, he must have recently refreshed the Hard Drive, OR he does not have a lot of crap installed on his computer.

My iBook 466 has performed very well with 128MB of RAM in the past, as well as running OS X and OS 9 together. I had both going, as well as Photoshop 6 in Classic, iTunes, Appleworks, ImageReady in Classic, and a few other apps. That's when my machine began to really bog down. The point is simply that 128MB does not mean too much in terms of performance until you have a lot of applications going.

Another example: My iMac 233 up in Maine is basically used for internet surfing and that's it. So I keep almost no crap on it. I haven't cleared the Hard Drive in at least a full year. I know someone, who carries around a Powerbook Firewire 400MHz, and he has commented on how fast my 160MB iMac is, compared to his 512MB portable.