Originally posted by edesignuk
You have my pitty, that must be PAINFUL!
Yeah. How much tweaking did you have to do to get that machine to work? It's nowhere near the supported specs.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Longhorn pushed back to 2006 ...
- Thread starter Fender2112
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Yeah. How much tweaking did you have to do to get that machine to work? It's nowhere near the supported specs.
My 14" (I think) monitor can only do 640x480 so I had to lower the font and icon sizes and I disabled themeing. Otherwise, it's a fresh install.
To me that's not a big a deal as the minimum CPU requirement. You're 66MHz short.
Plus, your hard drive has to be hurting...
There is a huge difference between a Windows service pack and a Mac .1 upgrade that I feel like you should understand, since you are posting on a Mac forum. The new release of Mac OS X, Panther, has many speed and UI improvements, and includes many new features. If you haven't already, I encourage you to go to Apple's Panther site and check out the new features page. On the other hand, the apparently forthcoming Window XP service pack will do nothing more than possibly improve security and offer modest speed benefits (if any). So, just in case you didn't know it before, a Mac OS X point upgrade is quite significant in terms of improvements and new features, while an XP service pack is basically a bunch of bug fixes and patches lumped together.
i have a few movies fully on single BetaMAX tapes.
still - VHS won out cause it was cheaper. The same is happening in the computer industry.
macs dont have every piece of major software for them. pcs are also cheaper. therefore macs will not ever be the mainstream computer.
if they did, MS would have a conundrum on its hands: keep making windows for a minority market (remember they cancelled their browser for a minoirty and don't make software at all for some others (*nix, BeOS))
Originally posted by Rower_CPU
To me that's not a big a deal as the minimum CPU requirement. You're 66MHz short.
Plus, your hard drive has to be hurting...
windows, including NT has for quite a while (since win98) had a CPU checker. It has always been set at 166Mhz. I guess they forogt to update it for XP.
I know it can run well on slower machines. My old C333, now dead, replaced by C2.78 (o/c 2.4), pc could run it well, not great, but well on 224MB PC66 RAM
Windows never checked if your CPU met the minimum requirements. You could probably install XP on a 386, if you wanted to anyways... I used to have Windows Me running on a 486SX with 32MB ram. I've also swapped the P166MMX with an AMD K5-75 and it still ran properly (although very slowly).
amen to that. everybody else jumped on the zip bandwagon, but i had the last laugh with my SyQuest EZ135 (until they went out of business of course). consumers don't care about storage space and seek times, they want flashy names and purple disks...
The probable reason for these .1 updates is because Apple is trying to stretch X as far as it will go. Think about it- Mac OS X. Mac OS 11 doesn't sound nearly as good- neither does Mac OS XI. I think the .1 releases are good- as "X" is a potential marketing strategy.
Just my $.02
-Ajmbc
I'm sorry, but I had to laugh at that. Those of us who use Macs AND PCs know how funny those statements are. It would take a LOT to fix all of our security woes, and I hope you're right, but somehow... I doubt it.
And - you do know that those .1 releases are HUGE improvements, right? I mean, 10.1 was ok, and 10.2 was cool, but 10.3 is amazing. You should try it sometime.
I can't wait to see what 10.4+ brings.You and Aiden would get along pretty well.