Mac OS X on different hardware - Page 2

So now someone with the name Applenut is bashing Mac users by saying that my thoughts on usable and fast are skewed, eh?

I won't respond beyond that.

Oh and on my Pismo 400 with 320MB Office v.X is faster than 2001.

[quote]Originally posted by Power Apple:
<strong>266 MHz G3 runs quite nicely?...well, maybe for very simple tasks, but not for general application use compared to what you can do with such a machine in Mac OS 9 (Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not bashing Mac OS X - I really like it's stability and have played with it since public beta, bought 10.0 the day it came out and used it since 10.1 but let's get real about speed)</strong><hr></blockquote>The machine operates quickly enough for me to run with my usual 5-6 apps open plus be a file server for several people. That ain't exactly bad... [quote]<strong>I have tried both an iMac 233 and beige G3 266 with 256 and 384 MB RAM (but no Radeon, however the graphics card doesn't make THAT big a difference in Aqua - I have upgraded a blue/white G3 from Rage128 to Radeon and the difference was mostly notisable in games and video - but 2d seems rather unaccelerated in Mac OS X.</strong><hr></blockquote>There's a reason I upgraded the graphics card: the graphics chips of those two computers is completely unaccelerated under OS X. Apple has not and has stated it will not provide good drivers for Rage Pro and Rage II owners, which are the very chips in those two you tested. Conversely, the Radeon is fully supported under OS X. The difference is at least a factor of two, maybe of three. It makes the difference between what in my opinion is a completely unusable system and a responsive if at-time slightly sluggish setup.

Just listen to Applenut trying to start fights ...

[quote]Originally posted by Kestral:
<strong>

My benchmark for it's acceptability is this: I can type faster than Word can display what I type. The fact that I can type faster than a 500 mhz G3 is pretty embarassing on the machine/OS, and I know it's not the machine because in Word 2001 in OS 9, it's can more than keep up with me.</strong><hr></blockquote>

That happens once in a while but not too often for me. I can accept it as long as it doesn't happen most of the time.

[quote]Originally posted by Bogie:
<strong>So now someone with the name Applenut is bashing Mac users by saying that my thoughts on usable and fast are skewed, eh?

I won't respond beyond that.

Oh and on my Pismo 400 with 320MB Office v.X is faster than 2001.</strong><hr></blockquote>

yea, I am saying your opinion is skewed. You said mine was. Yours would have to be to think OS X is "fast" on that hardware,

I don't recall saying your name when I said people have skewed perspectives, but if you want to take it as a hit, ok, two birds with one stone.

Oh and in response to the other statement you just made - I am wrong because my opinion is different?

Good argument, way to go.

I don't recall saying your name when I said people have skewed perspectives, but if you want to take it as a hit, ok, two birds with one stone.

Oh and in response to the other statement you just made - I am wrong because my opinion is different?

Good argument, way to go.

[quote]Originally posted by Bogie:
<strong>So now someone with the name Applenut is bashing Mac users by saying that my thoughts on usable and fast are skewed, eh?

I won't respond beyond that.

Oh and on my Pismo 400 with 320MB Office v.X is faster than 2001.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Bogie, you must be on some damn fine drugs. I agree with Applenut. I owned a Pismo 400 with 320 RAM and OS X was dog slow on it. I now have an iBook 500 and Office X runs way slower than Office 2001.

Based on my experiences, that can mean one of three things:

1. You are an apologist
2. You are a liar
3. You have no sense of objectviity
4. All of the above

I love this, no one agrees so I must be lying.

You want to know where slow verses not slow is? Comparing a Beige G3 300 with 640MB to a Beige G3 400 with 320MB and a Rage128 card in it.

The 400 runs fine, nice and steady, is it as fast as our PBG4? Course not, shouldn't be, otherwise we would have gotten ripped off on the PBG4.

But fact is that I have been impressed with Office v.X in terms of responsiveness ever since the beta releases.

Guys think this over once. An apologist eh?

Ok, explain, how should you guys be expected great performance out of a generation [almost two] old processor [G3] at under half the clock speed of the newer processor [G4] which the OS is optimized for?

My iMac sucks because OS X is too slow, whine some more.

Look, I owned two 5300c's and they were dogs, had all sorts of work done on them and you know what when they finally got all fixed up, everything beyond 7.6.1 was too slow on them.

They are supported through 9.1, shouldn't they work as well as I want them to?

They were sold within two years of 8.6 [1997 release, the 5300 came out in 1995] and they more than met the minimum requirements of 8.1 [PPC 601 and 16MB I believe?]

Mac OS X can be faster, will be faster, but who here used System 1.0-6.0?

Anyone?

Someone has to recall that 1.0 was not all that fast on the ONLY MAC MODEL IT RAN ON.

But we called it fast, before the multi-Finder toward the end of System 6 and before System 7 we thought that Mac OS was quite quick.

Now, is OS X as fast on my Pismo as OS 9?

no.

Is it better?

yes.

Is the speed loss fairly minor at this point?

yes.

Do I notice it?

not often.

Do I expect them to improve it?

a little, yes, a lot? no, why? because much like 8.6 was not faster than 8.1 on my PowerBook 5300c Mac OS X 10.5 will not be that much faster on my Pismo than 10.1.

Do I want them to keep improving it for older hardware?

of course, are you dumb? but they are moving forward not backward.

Get some perspective people, 1/4 of the threads at AI are complaining about Mac OS X and 2/3 are complaining that Apple is not pushing the next big thing out fast enough ...

I want it all as fast as I can get it too but some things are unrealistic.

I am happy with 10.1's performance on my hardware. I wish it was faster on the stuff before it, I wish hardware DVD decoding worked and I wish older graphics were better supported.

But I do not work for them, I choose to buy it or not buy it.

Here we go again... Remeber what you think is slow is fast to others. Everyone here always basis they're agruments on what they think is right. OS X is slow(ER) on older machine point taken and true.

I just like laughing at you guys and girls because no matter what Apple does you'll whine like little babies. Point is Apple is better than MS in many things, be happy with that. OS X is like cooking eggs you can't cook them if you don't brake the shell first (Unless you hard boiling them but..) Any way the shell is off give the dam things time to cook.

You know us Apple users need to stick toughter, not fight all the time. If you ask for change expect things to be rough for a while.. Bah...

Best post in this thread so far.

[quote]
Usable..but somewhat slow:
350-500 MHz G3 (Blue Power Macs, iMacs, iBooks, PowerBooks)
350-400 MHz G4 (Power Macs, PowerBook)
<hr></blockquote>

Agreed. I'm running 10.1.2 on a Sawtooth G4, 400 MHz, 576 MB RAM, Radeon AGP, OS 9.2.2 for classic.

Performance is fine in all instances except the following:

1. Heavy network activity brings the OS to it's knees. Heavy network use defined as: I'm running mail, Omniweb with 15 browser windows open ,and downloading 10 files all larger than 5 MB, over a modem connection. iTunes is running and stuffit expander pops up to do its thing every so often.

During these conditions, if I'm trying to use the finder to sort files, put newly downloaded files away, etc., everything is painfully slow. Dragging an item to the trash takes about 10 sec., I have to wait while it moves from it's finder window across the screen to the trash. At every window border it stalls, as if computing the transparency over the new background is too much for my G4.

2. Classic is open and running. When I'm using classic, my system crawls. If Classic is open and I'm surfing the web, forget about it, the system is a sloth. Top shows True Blue using little CPU time (15% maybe), but it's still a downer.

so OS X isn't much of a thoroughbred on my Sawtooth. There's not much else I can do for my hardware; the Radeon is already bandwidth-limited, I've got plenty of RAM (rarely see any pageouts according to top, memory stick, free RAM), and I'm using the newest version of all OS software, both OS X and OS 9.

Only solution I have is A) buy a new Mac, or B) buy a CPU upgrade.

And that's the real kicker. I had planned on buying a CPU upgrade every year or so when i bought my Sawtooth, but none seem to be available! Why aren't there 867 MHz upgrade cards for Sawtooths? The upgrade companies could make a killing...so it must be something else, perhaps Apple isn't letting Moto sell any G4s to these guys? Or maybe the new chips are so expensive that the upgrade companies figure it would be cheaper for people to sell their old macs and buy new ones?

I agree with Kestral on Word X. I constantly look at the screen while I am typing and it totally wrecks my train of thought waiting for the machine to catch up. I have an iBook 500 with 384mb. While it doesn't do this constantly, it is often enough to be very distracting.

I have reverted to using TextEdit and Okito composer for most of my typing because:
1. they keep up
2. text is rendered beautifully.

If I have to create a complicated document, then I stay with word.

(BTW, the cheapest I can find 512dimms for my iBook is $130. Anyone find it cheaper?)

OS X seems to run well on my DA466 384mb RAM, 7200RPM 40gig, Nvidia Geforce2.

Haven't and don't plan on trying it on 333iMac.