not n the os x wagon yet

Discussion in 'Hardware Rumors' started by jefhatfield, Oct 27, 2001.

  1. jefhatfield Retired


    Jul 9, 2000
    I am still in OS 9 on my 300 iBook, 160 MB RAM and it works well

    ...has anybody out there with a similar machine tried OS X (10.1) with any success or is this computer too slow to be comfortable?
  2. ThlayliTheFierce macrumors regular

    Jul 31, 2001
    San Luis Obispo, CA
    need more ram

    I've got 10.1 on an iMac 400 and it runs pretty well. It's a little slower than 9, but it's not very noticeable. Thing is it has 384 megs of ram. I think if you upgraded to at LEAST 256 you'd be ok.
  3. oldMac macrumors 6502a

    Oct 25, 2001
    I'm running 10.1 on two machines:


    Blue & White G3 400, 320MB
    Pretty snappy.

    iBook 500, 384MB
    Feels a little slow on this machine. But, 9.1 rocks.


    I'm guessing that the 66Mhz bus on the iBook slows it down a bit. It's very usable, just not snappy. It's my understanding that we will be seeing more performance improvements (esp in the area of ATI video drivers) in the future.

    I suspect that 10.1 would be a little slow on the 300Mhz iBook.

    Also, if you're going to run classic apps, then you should probably upgrade your RAM.
  4. jefhatfield thread starter Retired


    Jul 9, 2000
    thanks for the suggestion

    thank you for the facts on my ibook, i might up the RAM

    the original max on RAM was 160, but later was upped to 32 + 256 for 288 MB of RAM so i will have to do this

    since i only have one slot, i guess i will have to take out the 128 stick and use it elsewhere and then add a 256 low profile RAM into the ibook

    now that 10.1 is out, i have heard some good things and in time photoshop will be ready for osx...i can't wait even though i am not a real good photoshop user
  5. Catfish_Man macrumors 68030


    Sep 13, 2001
    Portland, OR
    10.1's fine on slower machines

    I've got a g3 233mhz, 384 MBs of ram, 30gig 7200rpm HD (the old one blew out). It's got more ram, but a slower processor so yours would probably be about the same speed. It's a tiny bit slow occasionally, but basically it runs great. Also, I've got the window buffer compression hack going, I haven't noticed it, but I'm sure it's doing something.
  6. Buggy macrumors regular

    Oct 14, 2001
    I am running OSX10.1 at home. At work I have removed it from the new machines. Too many networking problems with OSX. Actually it is an incopetant OS in the networking category.

    You can not effectively use appletalk to network to NT without crashing your Mac. No one in the Mac community knows how to do it. (at least thye aren't sharing)

    SMB works great for carbonized apps. And works for file transfer. The problem is only with classic apps. appletalk does work for file sharing but not within the Apps. dialog boxes. Since Photoshop and all DTP software is classic...this means that no company/institution can move to OSX if they are also on an NT network.

    Apple gets an "F" in networking.
  7. jefhatfield thread starter Retired


    Jul 9, 2000

    windows 2000 claims to be better with OS X and i will know in a few days

    i am going to install windows 2000 on my pc laptop and see how it works with my NT 4.0 desktop and OS 9 iBook

    if the OS 9 thing works, i may try the same thing with 10.1 and see how everything works in a peer to peer network

    i may also try a PDC thing with the NT 4.0 box with the W2K laptop and the iBook as a client...i am not up to any DD coding for that and the NT manual says it will work with Macs but with OS X? who knows

    it is that whole DoD C2 security standard and that HCL and HAL thing that the NT familiy brings into the fray which make connecting a Mac so least NT with its pseudo UNIX code is more stable than a DOS based solution like 95/98/ME...just not as friendly at the software store

Share This Page