i've been trying to convice my parents of putting os x on their mac for a while and i think i might be getting them to weaken but i'm not sure how great it would run. it would be on the original imac: 233 mhz with an upgrade of 160 mb of ram. would this be a good idea? anybody out there done it on the bondi mac or something slower?
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.
running OS X on bondi imac?
- Thread starter oddfuzz
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
get ram and it will run decently (well by a fellow G3 owners perspective) I have an Original G3 233 Desktop and I run X (I have 640 ram ant a fw/usb pci card). For u I would recomend buy your selve (or u parents) the new sonnet Harmoni chip which adds a FW port and boost ur chip to a 500mhz G3. And if u don't do this or even if u do I recomend find in ur self a copy of the WWDC Jaquar beta which is much faster even w/out Quartz Extreme.
BTW- message to anti-warez peoples. Downloading WWDC Jaguar isn't steeling since it's a beta w/ no set price and was pretty much freely given away @ WWDC.
BTW- message to anti-warez peoples. Downloading WWDC Jaguar isn't steeling since it's a beta w/ no set price and was pretty much freely given away @ WWDC.
I have a bondi iMac and OS X, its much too slow, dsepite having plenty of ram. Compared to Os 9, its unusable. Internet is much slower, window resizing is really pokey. The grahpics card is completley unsupported, emaning everything is done by the processor. its much too slow and I wouldn't recommend it to anyone. Os 9 on the other hand flies and is super stable on my machine.
I have done this once before. It was slow, granted that OS X could only recognize 64MB of RAM. (Can anyone spell slug? G-E-T M-O-R-E R-A-M!) I did experience problems...I could not connect to the internet at all. The Network and Internet preferences were correct, but I got some wierd error, I can't remember what it was. I did this back in 2001. If anyone could tell me how to get around this it would be helpful.
iMac 233 Rev. A/B (I am not sure...)
160MB RAM (upgraded for now)
4GB Hard Drive (I think I tried with one and two partitions and I got the same error/problem.)
__________________
Fear the King.
iMac 233 Rev. A/B (I am not sure...)
160MB RAM (upgraded for now)
4GB Hard Drive (I think I tried with one and two partitions and I got the same error/problem.)
__________________
Fear the King.
Look at it this way. X is 129. For only 21 per month you can get a new eMac with X, and a lot more to boot. Get you parents to bring you to the new century 
I have...
...a beige G3 233MHz with 384MBs of ram and a 30GB Quantum hard drive. It runs 10.1.4 (downloading 10.1.5 now) just fine. Sure it's not fast, but on a few tasks it can match my friend's stock G4 450.
...a beige G3 233MHz with 384MBs of ram and a 30GB Quantum hard drive. It runs 10.1.4 (downloading 10.1.5 now) just fine. Sure it's not fast, but on a few tasks it can match my friend's stock G4 450.
I have an iMac Rev.C with 160 megs of ram, which identical to yours, with the exception of a minimal 33MHz increase in processor speed. I would not reccomend running OSX on it. OSX corrupted my files both times I installed it, until I partitioned the disk (which requires backing up and initializing the disk). It's not worth it. OS9 runs beautifully on these machines, I think.
I also would not reccomend the HAROMNi upgrade, because I don't think it will help you with the fact that your graphics card is not supported. I have OSX, but it is just a novelty. I will only use it regularly once I have a much newer machine.
I also would not reccomend the HAROMNi upgrade, because I don't think it will help you with the fact that your graphics card is not supported. I have OSX, but it is just a novelty. I will only use it regularly once I have a much newer machine.
Originally posted by Backtothemac
Look at it this way. X is 129. For only 21 per month you can get a new eMac with X, and a lot more to boot. Get you parents to bring you to the new century
Lots of Luck and LOL! I am trying to hint to my parents on a different computer; however, they seem to be hinting me back a lot of hintful looks as well. Besides, I already have a small enough desk as it is for the current iMac.
If I want to, I can have my father insert the 500MHz G3 upgrade card. Then OS X may run a little faster.
I'd like to see all my classrooms (no, I don't teach, but learn) filled with eMacs!
__________________
Fear the King.
Originally posted by King Cobra
Lots of Luck and LOL! I am trying to hint to my parents on a different computer; however, they seem to be hinting me back a lot of hintful looks as well. Besides, I already have a small enough desk as it is for the current iMac.
If I want to, I can have my father insert the 500MHz G3 upgrade card. Then OS X may run a little faster.
I'd like to see all my classrooms (no, I don't teach, but learn) filled with eMacs!
__________________
Fear the King.
Hey KC, Think about it this way. The eMac has a smaller footprint than the Classic iMac. Isn't that screwed up. Check it out, it really does.
Royal Pineapple
macrumors 65816
i have a 500mhz G3 in my iBook and i run OSX all the time (i dont even use clasic) so i recomend getting the upgrade at all costs. OSX is a way of life, and the way of the future
-royal
I have a G4 400 (overclocked to 450) pci model with 448 MB of RAM
and I think OSX is SLOWWWWWW on this MAC.
well at least compared to 9.2.2
I can only imagine what it must be like on an Imac.
I won't run X until I get a faster mac ah and PROtools for X
and I think OSX is SLOWWWWWW on this MAC.
well at least compared to 9.2.2
I can only imagine what it must be like on an Imac.
I won't run X until I get a faster mac ah and PROtools for X
personally i think partition the drive so you have say 2 gig for os x and the rest for 9.2.2, then you can chop and change as you wish
as for min specs to run os x, it is a load of cr@p, i had x running on my pb g3, 233 MHz, 8 MB vram and (32 megs less than required, so the box says) 96 megs of ram, i didn't do any mods on the system, it ran fine first time, super stable, fine for internet, word processing. Classic start up time was acceptable, all in all it ran well on a laptop that isn't *allowed* to run it.
Oh, and chess, ran like a charm
final thought. turn off animation and magnification and hiding in the dock and you'll speed it up no end
as for min specs to run os x, it is a load of cr@p, i had x running on my pb g3, 233 MHz, 8 MB vram and (32 megs less than required, so the box says) 96 megs of ram, i didn't do any mods on the system, it ran fine first time, super stable, fine for internet, word processing. Classic start up time was acceptable, all in all it ran well on a laptop that isn't *allowed* to run it.
Oh, and chess, ran like a charm
final thought. turn off animation and magnification and hiding in the dock and you'll speed it up no end
I got a revb w/ 160MB (233MHz), a 400 and 500 both with 128MB and a 600 with 640MB...the revb and 600 are mine, the other two sorta my families...when I got my 600, the 233 was already really slow feeling for my tasks and couldn't play any games and stuff...I'll be surprised if it could runs OSX decently at all...my 600 is pretty good right now...no problems with it and it runs fast enough...our next computer will be a 1GHz iMac when it comes out...BTW, even though its only a tiny difference, the quality of the 600 seems to way surpass the 500 and 400 just for stupid reasons like the poer button is white and solid feeling and stuff...but thats just me
It's not a load of cr@p as you say it.
MAybe sitting around and waiting for an app to launch is fine for you. I want a bit of speed.
For example:
I have the apple web page with IE under 5secs.
that includes starting up IE.
With OSX it's at least double that time.
you can say...What's the hurry. It's just if you bought an expensive comp you want it to run well/fast.OSX is a drag on my G4 compared to OS9.
And no I dont want to turn off magnification and animation, it's there.... I paid for it...I want to see it. Speedy
well someone has a bad case of PMS. Maybe if you want awesome speed you should down grade to os 8!!!
sure x is slower than 9 if that is the price of stability then why not
any way, older os should run faster, os 9 takes up 100 or so meg, os 8 was about half that. and os 6, well, back then a 50 meg hard drive was out of the question
sure x is slower than 9 if that is the price of stability then why not
any way, older os should run faster, os 9 takes up 100 or so meg, os 8 was about half that. and os 6, well, back then a 50 meg hard drive was out of the question
umh yeah.
Some people actually have to do something on their computers. Slow is not an option.
any older OS should run faster?
So in 20 years from now all OS es will come to a halt?
What do you mean with a 50 MEG HD was out of the question? They only got bigger....and OS'es will become slower and slower? I don't get it.
BTW OS 9 doesn't take up 100 MB, at least not on my computer.
That's my system!
I run X on a Rev.A with 160 RAM. Boy, it is slow, but I still do it. Just can't face booting into 9 any more - it feels like going back to the stone age. Installation and upkeep have been a breeze.
And in all fairness, if you're running office or browsing the web, the difference between 9 and X is minimal.
In essence, I'm sticking with X because:
1) It motivates me to get a newer system as soon as possible.
2) It gives me time to get another beer while I wait for apps to launch.
3) 9 now appears laughably clunky.
4) 9 has no terminal, and you can't break it so easily.
I run X on a Rev.A with 160 RAM. Boy, it is slow, but I still do it. Just can't face booting into 9 any more - it feels like going back to the stone age. Installation and upkeep have been a breeze.
And in all fairness, if you're running office or browsing the web, the difference between 9 and X is minimal.
In essence, I'm sticking with X because:
1) It motivates me to get a newer system as soon as possible.
2) It gives me time to get another beer while I wait for apps to launch.
3) 9 now appears laughably clunky.
4) 9 has no terminal, and you can't break it so easily.