Is Tiger slower than Panther?

Discussion in 'macOS' started by riker1384, Apr 7, 2008.

  1. riker1384 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2007
    Location:
    West Coast
    #1
    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?
     
  2. PlaceofDis macrumors Core

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2004
    #2
    overall i found the opposite to be true. Tiger was much, much faster than Panther.

    but YMMV.
     
  3. heatmiser macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2007
    #3
    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.
     
  4. danny_w macrumors 601

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2005
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    #4
    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...
     

Share This Page