OS X and original iMacs (rev a-d)

[Xool]

I love OS X on my Ti 500, but now I'm eager to install it on my girlfriend's rev d iMac 333. So what kind of experience should I expect? Will it really be that bad?

Its already got a bigger/faster HD and the memory will be upgraded from its current 192 MB -> 384.

Just fishing for feedback...

[MasonMcD]

10.1 is relatively snappy on my Rev B with 384 MB. Stock box otherwise.

Don't keep opening and closing apps, or resizing windows and you'll be fine. After all, OS X is all about task management, so leave all of your apps open if you have >256 MB.

[jutus]

Anyone running X on the *original* iMac? You know, the target system for Rhapsody?

Er... MacOS X?

[Belle]

I'm trying to set up my old Bondi iMac as a remote server for backing up stuff, and intend to put 10.1 on it. I haven't got far, though, because for some reason it refuses to mount CD-Rs, though it happily mounts CD-ROMs.

When I figure it out, I'll let you know how it handles 10.1. It's got 160MB, by the way.

[Cosmo]

I'm typing this from my rev D imac in 10.1.1

It is pretty snappy, just as fast as 9.2 in most things. The only problems i have is with scrolling and resizing. I think this is due to lack of rage pro support.

Overall the experience is good, i wish itunes used less processor time though. :(
O well
(i have 256 megs of ram btw)

[Scott_H]

OS X is dog slow on my Rev C iMac with 320 MB. It's just slow and dumpy.

Voice commands don't work with the internal mic. I don't think it's the crappy internal mic because it used to work fine under OS 9. So no cool voice chess for me.

As always the support for the Rage Pro is a joke. I even wrote a letter to Apple about this. The sent me an email pointing me to the k-base page telling me to turn down the bit depth of the monitor. Great Apple. You fail to support my video card then tell me the solution is to turn down the bit depth :rolleyes:

10.1 is better but still long from being there. This is is still not finished and not writen with rec A-D iMacs in mind.

So I say, "Don't bother".

[Cosmo]

Yes, turning down the bit depth helps a bit, but you shouldn't be forced to do this just to achieve decent performance!

Also quicktime movies are extremely choppy and drop frames like crazy. (this is all due to lack of rage support)

[applenut]

don't do it. it's a waste. Apple could care less about those machines and it shows. Remember when the iMac was suppose to be the ideal mac for OS X? so much for that crap.

[quote]
Don't keep opening and closing apps, or resizing windows and you'll be fine. After all, OS X is all about task management, so leave all of your apps open if you have &gt;256 MB. <hr></blockquote>

you should not have to make adjustments in your work pattern to compensate for horrible OS performance.

[EmAn]

Before I let my brother-in-law borrow my Rev C iMac with 160MB for a while, I had installed 10.1 and it actually ran pretty well.

[MasonMcD]

applenut, I haven't adjusted anything. I keep apps open, and I keep window sizes the same. Just like I did in OS 9. But it's not like I'm a PS pro or something. Just email, web browsing, and Office. If I was a pro, I wouldn't have an iMac, now, would I?

[Xool]

[quote]Originally posted by Belle:
<strong>... for some reason it refuses to mount CD-Rs, though it happily mounts CD-ROMs.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

Our rev d iMac also has this problem with CD-R media. Its quite anoying, especially as its CD drive works with older discs.

[Nebagakid]

they may get it right eventually :rolleyes: <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />

[Cosmo]

[quote]Originally posted by Belle:
<strong>for some reason it refuses to mount CD-Rs, though it happily mounts CD-ROMs.</strong><hr></blockquote>


My brother's iMac (Rev D) had this problem as well, however it was while it was still under warranty, so we just took it in, and they replaced the CD drive. Problem solved.

One other problem with running X on my Rev D is iTunes. Its not that it doesn't work, but it takes a lot of processor power (25-45%), and, in turn slows everything else down.
Overall 10.1 is still very usable.

[bradbower]

My Rev A iMac performs better than my Rev C iMac, and better yet than my neighbor's Rev D. The Rev A doesn't use a Rage Pro, it uses a Rage IIc or something, and OS X is fairly snappy on it. It takes forever to open Illustrator (10), but then again it always has. :) I run http/ftp/afp/ssh/telnet servers on it, occasionally stream mp3s, it works great. I use it for my main machine too, Office, email, graphics, music, IRC/AIM/etc, and I even play The Sims and other games on it. It's such a great machine, though I admit I've maxed out the VRAM and upgraded the RAM. Also it can read CD-Rs just fine (in fact that's how I got OS X ;) but don't tell anyone)!

Hope all of you have better luck.

[Artman @_@]

I have an iMac G3 700 with 768 MB RAM and OS X runs fine...but it's GUI is WAY too crowded on an iMac screen. Kind of disappointing since I don't think I'll be getting another Mac for some time (unless I win a lottery...) :(

[Bogie]

I don't know how the OS X GUI can be considered crowded on an iMac's 15" display since it looks fine on my Pismo and on my friend's iBook dual USB. The majority of OS X Macs out there today have about 15" screens.

[Amorph]

The iMac's CRT looks best at 800x600. 1024 x 768 causes eyestrain. Consequently, most of the iMacs I've seen run at 800x600, and OS X wasn't really designed to fit into that resolution.

[EmAn]

[quote]Originally posted by Amorph:
<strong>The iMac's CRT looks best at 800x600. 1024 x 768 causes eyestrain. Consequently, most of the iMacs I've seen run at 800x600, and OS X wasn't really designed to fit into that resolution.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I used to run 1024x768 on my iMac and I thought it was fine, and it was even better in OS X.

[zonetuke]

Anyone have an opinion on whether upgrading an iMac 350 with 192 MB to X is worth it? I fear that OS 9 is faster than X on this machine. Can anyone confirm or deny this?

thanks

matthew

[ 11-28-2001: Message edited by: zonetuke ]</p>

[EmAn]

[quote]Originally posted by zonetuke:
<strong>Anyone have an opinion on whether upgrading an iMac 350 with 192 MB to X is worth it? I fear that OS 9 is faster than X on this machine. Can anyone confirm or deny this?

thanks

matthew

[ 11-28-2001: Message edited by: zonetuke ]</strong><hr></blockquote>

Try it. If it's not fast enough for you then go back to OS 9. Simple enough.

[torifile]

OS 9 is faster on every machine! It's not about speed, people. When are you going to realize that? I'm not saying that you shouldn't be concerned about speed, but that's not the only measure of a good OS.

[EmAn]

[quote]Originally posted by torifile:
<strong>OS 9 is faster on every machine! It's not about speed, people. When are you going to realize that? I'm not saying that you shouldn't be concerned about speed, but that's not the only measure of a good OS.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Right, that's why on my Rev C iMac I ran OS X from 10.0-10.1 starting on March 24th when OS X came out.

[Doonboggle]

I had some fun installing 10.1 on my girlfriends rev. b. It was complicated by the fact that the CD drive was busted. I installed it first on my DV400, took the drive out, and then installed it in the rev.b.
It worked pretty well. I upgraded to 320MB ram at the same time. Definitely slower than the DV, but we're talking 233mhz here and a much slower GPU.

Problems arose when I told my girlfriend to update to 10.1.1. (I'm 3000 miles away at the moment).

The update software probably got confused by the machine ID and now it won't boot at all. Without a working CDROM the thing is DOA.

So picked up a used cdrom on ebay so I can finally boot off a cd and install osx properly (once I fly back to Seattle).