Update 10.2 over 9.x installation?. . .
Wanted to know if it's possible to load 10.2 over an existing 9.0 system with out losing your existing files?
Or can I install in the free disks space (if the drive is defraged)?
Also:
If I back up files from a 9.X installation to a back disk, will 10.2.x be able to read this back up disk?
Or can I install in the free disks space (if the drive is defraged)?
Also:
If I back up files from a 9.X installation to a back disk, will 10.2.x be able to read this back up disk?
Comments
Also, any CDs you burn in OS9 should be readable in OSX. Zip disks from 9 also work in X. Pretty much anything formatted in HFS or HFS+ (the formats OS9 uses) will be readable in OSX.
So I can go get a boxed copy of 10.2 and install (with the boot to 9 option checked) and 10.2 will install on my iMac DV free disk space and leave my files and 9.x system alone and available if I want to boot back to it?
Just wanted to double check.
If that's the case that's a great option as I just want to try out 10.2.
Just remember one thing when you boot back to OS9: there will be some extra files with unusual names at the top of your hard drive. They may include but aren't limited to: Users, Library. System, mach, mach.sym, bin, cores, and several other folders that are normally hidden in Mac OS X. Don't delete these! Don't move them either! You might break Mac OS X if you do.
That's great news!!!
I'm using an older system from work and wanted to make sure that I can leave 9 there and still be able to get the files if they are ever needed.
This guy has 256MB RAM, is that to small for 10.2?
There are ways for checking how frequently your Mac is having to hit virtual memory, but I'll save that for later. Feel free to post again once you've installed and I'll give you instructions for reading the memory info from the "top" command in the Terminal.
Thank you very much! With the good information that you posted in this thread I was able to upgrade the system from OS 9 to OS X Jaguar with no problems.
When I went to install jag there were only three options. The first option just said something like: install Jaguar on the system. The next was one about backing up the system in it was grayed out. Last option said clean install and something to the effect that it would erase the disk and install a fresh copy. I went for the first option and breathed a big sigh of relief when I booted the machine and found all my system 9 files intact.
I also had a memory module that I bought about three years ago that was perfect for this system and I put in the spare memory slot. This was a very easy upgrade and now the system has a half a gigabyte of memory!
What I wasn't prepared for was the performance of the system (iMac DV SE 400 MHz.) Last year I tried out two Macintosh systems. One was a dual 1 GHz system. I returned due to its high cost (about $4000 including the 17 inch flat screen monitor.) The other was a 800 MHz iMac 15 inch screen with the SuperDrive. The iMac was very pokey and its network capabilities left a lot to be desired (I returned this guy also.) It could copy files from my Linux server pretty well but it couldn't copy over to that system with any decent speed (note: this was OS X 10.1.5 and with 256MB RAM.) This little 400 MHz iMac blows it out of the water running Jaguar. The past three days I've tried to subject this machine to all situations that would bring a normal 400 MHz Pentium II its knees, and is passed all them with flying colors. I've digitized music, captured video, and lastly I ran iTunes with files from my Linux server and QuickTime movies over the network (again from the same Linux server) all at the same time, and this little guy kept up with all it! There were a few skips in the QuickTime's video but none in the sound of these same QuickTime files. And all the time in the background Konfabulator was running, and this program is a bit of a resource hog!
I was also able to help my brother with his PC using VNC thing on the iMac. I fixed a permission problem with a game he was trying to play on the Pogo game site. When it was fixed I watched on both my 2.8 G Hz PC and the 400 MHz iMac, and was surprised at the iMac was a tad bit faster running VNC! It was almost showing the cards moving in real-time as he was playing society solitaire.
Needless to say I'm very impressed with the performance of this little guy, and would recommend anybody who wants to buy an older machine just to get their feet wet with using OS X that they will not be disappointed. The only place this machine is very slow is converting files to the MP3 format. It almost takes as long as it does to digitize the actual recording. I got this system for good price so I have nothing to complain about an I'm very happy with the results. I'm posting this rather long-winded reply so that any of you other PC folks out there that have always been curious about the Mac and might be interested in buying a lower end machine to experiment with. Now if I could just find the same programs I have on my PC for the Mac I would be very happy, and would probably switch. But for now I will be "a Tweener" until I can convince the folks that make my favorite programs to make Mac versions! One last note: it takes anywhere from 5 to 6 maybe 10 seconds for WinAmp to update the sound changes made in the graphic equalizer on my 2.8 MHz PC running Windows 2000, where its instantaneous making those same changes in iTunes on the 400 MHz G3 iMac! Strange. . . .