Re: Re: Making a Faster Transition from OS 9 to OS X. . .
No, there is only the full version of OS X and it sells for $129.
No, there is only the full version of OS X and it sells for $129.
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.
Making a Faster Transition from OS 9 to OS X. . .
- Thread starter Shrek
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I haven't switched to OSX
My iMac DV is stable as it is and performs at a fairly decent pace. I would have to significantly increase my RAM (I currently have 384MB) to be able to use OSX.
I think OSX is great, just not on my machine. OS9 provides me a stable operating system and speed for all of my computing needs.
My iMac DV is stable as it is and performs at a fairly decent pace. I would have to significantly increase my RAM (I currently have 384MB) to be able to use OSX.
I think OSX is great, just not on my machine. OS9 provides me a stable operating system and speed for all of my computing needs.
Re: I haven't switched to OSX
In all reality I don't believe you machine is even considered OSX compatible though you can install it without a hack I believe. Really you can run OSX fine on your iMac just the system will be slow the rest of the apps will run fine with a much increased stability. If you think your machine only crashes once in a great while, after running OSX it will feel like it was crashing all the time.
In all reality I don't believe you machine is even considered OSX compatible though you can install it without a hack I believe. Really you can run OSX fine on your iMac just the system will be slow the rest of the apps will run fine with a much increased stability. If you think your machine only crashes once in a great while, after running OSX it will feel like it was crashing all the time.
It's going to be impossible for any Macs older than some pre-G3 PowerMacs to have OS X, so what's the point counting them? ANd I'm sure there are still LOTS of those around since Macs last so long (my school's lab has 80% Performas). So what we really need to know is how many percent of the people with OS X-compatible machines are still running 9, not the percentage of all Macs as to those with OS X.
irmongoose
irmongoose
My point exactly. Also it would be interesting to know what % of non OSX compatible macs are running OSX through a hack.
actually if MS/pc world and apple did that we would kick some serious butt!
i thinks about 80% of OX copmatible machines are running it.
i can tell you that a pc from four years ago (Celeron 333A) can, with 512MB PC66 SDRAM, run windows XP Pro, i know - i did it on my old pc (god bless my MDD).
imagine the numbers of pcs they would have to count. all of those corporate machines aswell. they all run win2k or NT4. ouch!
we win 1mill to 1. yay!
but really - those running os9 are mac users. therefore they count too. just cause they dont run the latest and greatest doesnt mean we should cut them off. apple - yes. why? economically hard to support two completely different OS's. MS has never had to do that. It's most popular OS's have been for as long as i have been alive (im 17) DOS based. only now with XP do they have to really support DOS based OS's (winME) and NT based OS's (win2k/winXP) on a mass scale.
now ive had a rant at the expense of my fingers (all ten of them) i think i shall round up and say - no matter how you try we have a better OS adoption rate than any other company except ....
i thinks about 80% of OX copmatible machines are running it.
i can tell you that a pc from four years ago (Celeron 333A) can, with 512MB PC66 SDRAM, run windows XP Pro, i know - i did it on my old pc (god bless my MDD).
imagine the numbers of pcs they would have to count. all of those corporate machines aswell. they all run win2k or NT4. ouch!
we win 1mill to 1. yay!
but really - those running os9 are mac users. therefore they count too. just cause they dont run the latest and greatest doesnt mean we should cut them off. apple - yes. why? economically hard to support two completely different OS's. MS has never had to do that. It's most popular OS's have been for as long as i have been alive (im 17) DOS based. only now with XP do they have to really support DOS based OS's (winME) and NT based OS's (win2k/winXP) on a mass scale.
now ive had a rant at the expense of my fingers (all ten of them) i think i shall round up and say - no matter how you try we have a better OS adoption rate than any other company except ....
Re: Re: I haven't switched to OSX
Check the OS X compatibility page at apple.com
You will see that any macintosh with a G3 or G4 chip will run Mac OS X and is supported and considered compatible. My old Beige G3 233 is running 10.2.4 flawlessly as we speak. It came with os 8.0 installed, and it is nearly 6 years old, and is the oldest computer to officially be supported by OS X (although i don't think the floppy drive works, anyway i haven't used that in years).
Even if you have an old 7xxx, 8xxx or 9xxx series powermac you can upgrade it to a 500mhz g4 and hack os x to run on it. You may even be able to do it wiith the 4xxx 5xxx and 6xxx although don't quote me on that.
Anyone got OS X running on a Mac Classic?
Check the OS X compatibility page at apple.com
You will see that any macintosh with a G3 or G4 chip will run Mac OS X and is supported and considered compatible. My old Beige G3 233 is running 10.2.4 flawlessly as we speak. It came with os 8.0 installed, and it is nearly 6 years old, and is the oldest computer to officially be supported by OS X (although i don't think the floppy drive works, anyway i haven't used that in years).
Even if you have an old 7xxx, 8xxx or 9xxx series powermac you can upgrade it to a 500mhz g4 and hack os x to run on it. You may even be able to do it wiith the 4xxx 5xxx and 6xxx although don't quote me on that.
Anyone got OS X running on a Mac Classic?
Re: Re: Re: I haven't switched to OSX
I have a few friends that hav done just that. That is why I said previously that it would be interesting to know the % of non OSX compatible machines that are running OSX through a hack.
I have a few friends that hav done just that. That is why I said previously that it would be interesting to know the % of non OSX compatible machines that are running OSX through a hack.
Exactly. Speaking from the Education market standpoint, that's exactly the case. The dang computers just last too long! There's a LOT of older machines out there that are incapable of supporting Jaguar...despite the "freebie" incentive for teachers getting a copy of Jaguar, our Apple representative expressed surprise that the response to that offer didn't go through the roof. Thing is, they don't have the machines to handle OS X. It'll take some time, folks...perhaps 2-3 more years...at least in education, where money right now ain't exactly growin' on trees...
...and from an IT support and service standpoint, we ain't ABOUT to begin expensive memory upgrades, hacks, or what-have-you to make 6 year old machines perform in OS X. I can't think of a worse way to show off a new operating system, especially one as massive as Jaguar. (keep in mind that this scenario speaks to hundreds and hundreds of machines...not just one or two I've got at home that I want to "play" with)
Re: Re: I haven't switched to OSX
my school is running 10.2.4 on 600mhz imacs. they feel fine to me
my school is running 10.2.4 on 600mhz imacs. they feel fine to me
Re: Re: Re: I haven't switched to OSX
My statement for some reason has been pointed back at me a couple times though neither of the cases has prooved it wrong. According to the current hardware requirements put forth by Apple basically all non-beige G3s are OSX compatible.
Yes your iMacs are OSX compatible and should run it just fine though a bit slower then modern hardware. From what I remember the first OSX machine that Apple stated was going to be OSX compatible when the machine was released was the B/W G3. I think every hardware update of every other machine iMacs and otherwise after that were also OSX compatible. Basically the very first iMacs are the only non beige boxes that Apple didn't state as OSX compatible back then. I think the controversy comes in on my statement because I forgot the iMac DV is 400MHz+ and came out after the B/W G3 thus making it OSX compatible.
Originally posted by daniel77
my school is running 10.2.4 on 600mhz imacs. they feel fine to me
My statement for some reason has been pointed back at me a couple times though neither of the cases has prooved it wrong. According to the current hardware requirements put forth by Apple basically all non-beige G3s are OSX compatible.
Yes your iMacs are OSX compatible and should run it just fine though a bit slower then modern hardware. From what I remember the first OSX machine that Apple stated was going to be OSX compatible when the machine was released was the B/W G3. I think every hardware update of every other machine iMacs and otherwise after that were also OSX compatible. Basically the very first iMacs are the only non beige boxes that Apple didn't state as OSX compatible back then. I think the controversy comes in on my statement because I forgot the iMac DV is 400MHz+ and came out after the B/W G3 thus making it OSX compatible.
keep in touch with teachers. I got a free copy of jaguar from my teacher. He told me that he gets all kinds of software for freee. He didnt own a mac so i begged him to give me his os x and he agreed. FOr once school paid off lol.