Jaguar on "Legacy" iMacs...

mischief

macrumors 68030
Original poster
Aug 1, 2001
2,920
0
Santa Cruz Ca
Has anyone installed Jag on a rev A-D or slotloading CRT iMac?

It runs beautifully on the 450 AGP G4 I use at work but I'm wondering about my Rev D iMac at home.... If there's any performance boost AT ALL I'll do it, the poor little guy gets so confused when I forget it's still running 9.2 it'd be a mercy to get the pre-emptive multitasking going on it. I don't care about QE, I just want to know if it's worth the hassle.:confused:

Thanx
-M
 

3777

macrumors 6502
Jul 25, 2002
379
0
iMac 400Mhz DV

Definitely worth the install of OSX 10.2 ...........10.1 no, but 10.2 yes. Just be sure your firmware is at least to 2.4, or 4.1 or your iMac won't work properly. (screen will be messed up)
 

3777

macrumors 6502
Jul 25, 2002
379
0
P.S.

Won't be a performance boost from 9.2 but it won't be a great loss either, 10.2 is much faster then 10.1 ...and you won't get all the "out of memory" messages that always popped up with os9 .....definitely worth the updgrade to 10.2 now.
 

mischief

macrumors 68030
Original poster
Aug 1, 2001
2,920
0
Santa Cruz Ca
Thanx!

I was beginning to think I was the last guy on these boards with a machine that old that's still technically "compliant". Anybody put Jag on a Beige G3 yet? the 333 model is effectively a rev D iMac with PCI so the results would be relevant to my querry..... Any observations on a 300- 500 G3 and a 66Mhz bus would help...

:D
 

G5orbust

macrumors 65816
Jun 14, 2002
1,309
0
o sh**. i installed my friend's jagaur on his i think rev a slot loading 350 imac. Now his screens messed up and i told him his crt burned out. But he had 10.1 professionally installed, so wouldnt the guy update firmware?? I hope he did and my advice was correct.
 

3777

macrumors 6502
Jul 25, 2002
379
0
no

Originally posted by G5orbust
o sh**. i installed my friend's jagaur on his i think rev a slot loading 350 imac. Now his screens messed up and i told him his crt burned out. But he had 10.1 professionally installed, so wouldnt the guy update firmware?? I hope he did and my advice was correct.
It's definitely the firmware not being up to date. 10.1 will work on an iMac, 10.2 will not without the firmware update. You better tell him this before he throws away a good iMac.:D
 

FattyMembrane

macrumors 6502a
Apr 14, 2002
966
129
bat country
i just did an archive install of 10.2 on my summer 2001 imac (384 megs, Rage128/16meg, 5400rpm hd), and the results were lackluster. the machine boots up more quickly, and chimera scrolls through web pages a little better, but that's it as far as performance increases. ichat is nice if you like eye candy but is inferior to adium (although i'm using ichat because i paid for it, damn it). i did the archive install just to test it out, and am going to be reformating the drive and installing later today. i certainly hope that performance incrases after the disk erase, otherwise i would not recomend 10.2 to crt imac owners. the same thing happened with 10.1, people said how much faster it was but it was not that big of an increase (although i noticed more of a speed increase from10-10.1 than from 10.1-10.2). true, the terminal loads a lot more quickly (how hard is that?) and a few apps seem to load one bounce quicker. i really hope that the reformat works some magic, or else i'm going to feel like i got the shaft from my favorite company. :(

i'll post again once i've wiped out the drive.
 

FattyMembrane

macrumors 6502a
Apr 14, 2002
966
129
bat country
ok, reformat and clean install, it's a little snappier, but that's probably because i've yet to install many applications. over-all, i'm very unimpressed with this upgrade and think that the price apple charged for this software is not comensurate with the benefits, unless you have quartz extreme and use bluetooth 24 hours a day.
 

3777

macrumors 6502
Jul 25, 2002
379
0
OS9 applications in 10.2 Classic are 70% faster then 10.1. Overall on my iMac the performance is at least 40% faster and a lot of bugs from 10.1 have been fixed.
 

GeeYouEye

macrumors 68000
Dec 9, 2001
1,652
4
State of Denial
iMac DV+

Yes it'll install, and be much faster than 10.1. Same with a beige G3. Also, since you say you have it on a G4 450, is it just me, or does classic load faster on that machine than OS 9. I think it does, for whatever reason.
 

Pepzhez

macrumors regular
Jan 23, 2002
161
0
I just posted this info on another thread, but it's worth repeating here.

I do have Jaguar installed on my 500 mhz G3 imac DVSE (1 GB RAM). It works fine - much more responsive than 10.1.5 - but only after doing some necessary tweaking.

After installing Jaguar, especially if you are updating and not doing a clean install, reinsert Jaguar disc one and go to Disk Utility and Disk First Aid. Choose OS X and click Verify Disk Permissions, then Repair Disk Permissions. It may take anywhere from 15-30 minutes to both verify and repair.

When you reboot into OS X, you'll first notice that boot time is faster than before. You'll also notice how much snappier response is while using Jaguar. If you've had any instability issues, they should now be eliminated.

I found this tip on another Mac forum and it really does work! I advise everyone who has installed Jaguar to repair disk permissions now!

Another thing that helped, I think, is that I then booted up from my old Norton Utilities disc (for OS 9, not X), and optimized the OS X partition. If you upgrade from 10.1 to 10.2, the result is severe fragmentation. Optimizing can only help, I'm sure.

(I should mention that I have the $19.95 upgrade discs, which stupidly will not allow you to do a clean Jaguar install!)

After doing all of this, I'd say that Jaguar is almost as responsive as OS 9.2 in a G3 imac. At least it is now close enough to the point where I no longer feel that the OS is lagging.

Although I only had to pay $20 for the OS X upgrade (I had bought a PowerMac in July and, no, I feel no guilt about inserting the upgrade discs into my old Macs as well), I do think that I would have been livid if I had paid full price for this OS update. Yes, it is a little bit faster - but not a blazing difference. It's merely a performance tweak that was expected (and should've been there in the first place). Other than that, what does Jaguar offer? ichat? I couldn't care less about it. It was thrown in the trash as soon as I booted (along with all other apps I won't need). The new audio core is promising, but OS X still has some serious audio issues that Jaguar did not fix.

And why can't Jaguar deal with mounted disc images? This is really annoying to me, because it is something I use a lot. All earlier versions of OS X had no problems with this, so why is there suddenly a bug now? Grrrrrr.

But the real POS is Quick Time 6 (which Jaguar installs by default, overwriting your existing QT 5 app). It's just horrible - absolutely useless. In the past, I had early beta versions of QT 4 and 5 that were more functional than QT 6 final! Video playback is choppy; full screen playback is out of proportion and pauses constantly (doesn't matter if you are using the latest dual proc Powermac or an old G3 imac). I had to find a QT 5 reinstaller for all of my machines.

I just can't believe that Apple released such a bug-ridden QT version. This is easily the single worst QT release ever; this never should've made it out of the door.

As I said, I only had to pay $20 for Jaguar, so I'm not really going to complain about the price, but I can't begin to understand how anyone who paid full price isn't screaming for blood.

So is it worth it? Only if you are paying no more than $20 or can "borrow" the discs. I'd also suggest that you have a QT 5 reinstaller on hand before you upgrade to 10.2.

I don't care what anyone says. Jaguar is NOT a "major upgrade". It's a performance tweak that works, yes, but that's all it is. (Unless you think ichat and the like is worth every penny.) It's full-price-no-exceptions cost is simply not justifiable.
 

rice_web

macrumors 6502a
Oct 25, 2001
584
0
Minot, North Dakota
Jaguar is nice, and significantly faster than 10.1. I would recommend, though, skinning OS X with a faster "aqua". I am running Duality, and the speed increase is noticeable.
 

zimv20

macrumors 601
Jul 18, 2002
4,388
7
toronto
Re: Thanx!

Originally posted by mischief
Anybody put Jag on a Beige G3 yet?
yes! it's running on my 266 MHz, 160 meg RAM, 4 gig HD beige g3. it's faster than 10.1.5, definitely, but:

1. the install took me from 2 gig free to 900 meg free. i installed it over top of 10.1.5. i will likely zero the HD and reinstall. note there is no os9 on the machine. and as of yet, no user documents (that's 3.1 gig worth of os, folks).

2. there are some video bugs. i never did a firmware update -- will look into that.

3. it is not as fast as 9.2 on that machine, imo.

i've got it running a web server and ftp server, both are low volume. works great. gonna run an email server next.


anybody install the developer tools? can you tell me how much disk space it chews up? thanks.
 

macsurfer

macrumors regular
Jul 18, 2002
133
0
NYC, L.A.
Originally posted by Pepzhez
I just posted this info on another thread, but it's worth repeating here.

I do have Jaguar installed on my 500 mhz G3 imac DVSE (1 GB RAM). It works fine - much more responsive than 10.1.5 - but only after doing some necessary tweaking.

After installing Jaguar, especially if you are updating and not doing a clean install, reinsert Jaguar disc one and go to Disk Utility and Disk First Aid. Choose OS X and click Verify Disk Permissions, then Repair Disk Permissions. It may take anywhere from 15-30 minutes to both verify and repair.

When you reboot into OS X, you'll first notice that boot time is faster than before. You'll also notice how much snappier response is while using Jaguar. If you've had any instability issues, they should now be eliminated.

I found this tip on another Mac forum and it really does work! I advise everyone who has installed Jaguar to repair disk permissions now!

Another thing that helped, I think, is that I then booted up from my old Norton Utilities disc (for OS 9, not X), and optimized the OS X partition. If you upgrade from 10.1 to 10.2, the result is severe fragmentation. Optimizing can only help, I'm sure.

(I should mention that I have the $19.95 upgrade discs, which stupidly will not allow you to do a clean Jaguar install!)

After doing all of this, I'd say that Jaguar is almost as responsive as OS 9.2 in a G3 imac. At least it is now close enough to the point where I no longer feel that the OS is lagging.

Although I only had to pay $20 for the OS X upgrade (I had bought a PowerMac in July and, no, I feel no guilt about inserting the upgrade discs into my old Macs as well), I do think that I would have been livid if I had paid full price for this OS update. Yes, it is a little bit faster - but not a blazing difference. It's merely a performance tweak that was expected (and should've been there in the first place). Other than that, what does Jaguar offer? ichat? I couldn't care less about it. It was thrown in the trash as soon as I booted (along with all other apps I won't need). The new audio core is promising, but OS X still has some serious audio issues that Jaguar did not fix.

And why can't Jaguar deal with mounted disc images? This is really annoying to me, because it is something I use a lot. All earlier versions of OS X had no problems with this, so why is there suddenly a bug now? Grrrrrr.

But the real POS is Quick Time 6 (which Jaguar installs by default, overwriting your existing QT 5 app). It's just horrible - absolutely useless. In the past, I had early beta versions of QT 4 and 5 that were more functional than QT 6 final! Video playback is choppy; full screen playback is out of proportion and pauses constantly (doesn't matter if you are using the latest dual proc Powermac or an old G3 imac). I had to find a QT 5 reinstaller for all of my machines.

I just can't believe that Apple released such a bug-ridden QT version. This is easily the single worst QT release ever; this never should've made it out of the door.

As I said, I only had to pay $20 for Jaguar, so I'm not really going to complain about the price, but I can't begin to understand how anyone who paid full price isn't screaming for blood.

So is it worth it? Only if you are paying no more than $20 or can "borrow" the discs. I'd also suggest that you have a QT 5 reinstaller on hand before you upgrade to 10.2.

I don't care what anyone says. Jaguar is NOT a "major upgrade". It's a performance tweak that works, yes, but that's all it is. (Unless you think ichat and the like is worth every penny.) It's full-price-no-exceptions cost is simply not justifiable.
I don't have those problems with QT 6 at all. full screen works as well as it did w/10.1
 

Pepzhez

macrumors regular
Jan 23, 2002
161
0
I'll agree that QT 6 works as well in 10.1 as it does in 10.2 - the point being that it sucks in both. And full screen mode is slow and, yes, aspect ratios ARE distorted. It's subtle, but it's there.

I'm not 100% sure if this is QT 6 itself or a bug between FCP 3.0.2 (which Apple has "approved" for QT 6 use) and QT Pro 6. Regardless, QT 5 works flawlessly with FCP 3 and QT 6 does not. Look around the FCP forums and you'll see that I am not the only one who has this problem.
 

G5orbust

macrumors 65816
Jun 14, 2002
1,309
0
ill tell him tomoorow. he was having the mac guy come it look at it or/and give it its last rights. Hopefully the mac guy will catch the firmware thing. if not ill be tehre in time to save the mac. do u just get firmware updates from the apple site correct?
 

3777

macrumors 6502
Jul 25, 2002
379
0
Link

Originally posted by G5orbust
ill tell him tomoorow. he was having the mac guy come it look at it or/and give it its last rights. Hopefully the mac guy will catch the firmware thing. if not ill be tehre in time to save the mac. do u just get firmware updates from the apple site correct?

Here is a direct link to the 2.4 and 4.1 updates. 2.4 is the important one.....

http://kbase.info.apple.com/cgi-bin/WebObjects/kbase.woa/wa/query?val=imac+kbdload&x=5&y=14&type=smartSearch&nodes=&dateModified=&geography=
 

G5orbust

macrumors 65816
Jun 14, 2002
1,309
0
well, he took it to a computer place before i could get to him. o well theyll do something....
 

mc68k

macrumors 68000
Apr 16, 2002
1,996
0
i run jag on my 9600 w 50mhz bus and 450 mhz g4

it is very fast. the rage 128 will be a little slow for aqua, but that should be your only problem if you're not looking for extreme speed
 

Buggy

macrumors regular
Oct 14, 2001
133
0
Canada
re: iMac rev A and B

Apple's documentation says that I can't update these machines to firmware 2.4 or 4.1 since they are tray loading not slot loading...

Is this going to be a problem? I plan to install 10.2 within the next week or two (waiting for shipment)
 

3777

macrumors 6502
Jul 25, 2002
379
0
Firmware

Originally posted by Buggy
re: iMac rev A and B

Apple's documentation says that I can't update these machines to firmware 2.4 or 4.1 since they are tray loading not slot loading...

Is this going to be a problem? I plan to install 10.2 within the next week or two (waiting for shipment)
Probably not, as long as you have the latest firmware for your version of the iMac then you should be ok. If there were an issue with your model I think Apple would have a version of the firmware update to fix it..... not 100% sure though:D
 

G5orbust

macrumors 65816
Jun 14, 2002
1,309
0
Originally posted by Macmaniac
I can't wait to get jaguar for our 700mhz G3 iMac, the last of the complete CRT line! I can't wait to try it out, I will let you guys know how it turned out on the fastest CRT iMac:)

ok, but what color is it? I believe that tehy are eitehr graphite or indigo, but i cant rememer.