X on iBooks in the future

Posted:
in Current Mac Hardware edited January 2014
I have a iBook 600, i ran X on it but i still like OS9 better. Anyway, X still feels a bit slow (and it is slow). But how do you think future versions of X will work on a G3 processor?



Beacuse im gonna stick to my iBook for another couple of years and I will switch to X in not to long i guess..

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 12
    matsumatsu Posts: 6,558member
    Not that great unless G3's get about twice as fast. The days of non-altivec macs are limited. While OSX doesn't need SIMD per se, many of the encoding, filtering, ripping, correction, and editing processes that Apple is targeting at consumers will benefit greatly from such a unit. IBM has even said that a Sahara II variant will sport an SIMD unit by late 2002. If you're willing to live with a little lag and don't put heavy demands on system resources, then an iBook should be fine for X, at least for a little while. However, I think people want OS9/Win98 levels of responsiveness. Click, open. Like that, no-bounces. Instantanious! Right now the only systems that come close are 700-867Mhz G4's.



    Even the majority of TiBook's don't yet meet that criteria.
  • Reply 2 of 12
    emaneman Posts: 7,204member
    I think it should run decently. OS X will get some more speed boosts and it should help out G3s.
  • Reply 3 of 12
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 17,443member
    I have a 500MHZ PowerBook and my wife just got 600MHZ iBook.



    They run OSX fine. Mine has 384MB and hers has 256MB. Occasionaly, we'll wait a few seconds for a process to complete, but that is fine. OSX is not all that better on a G4 either. A little faster, but not much.
  • Reply 4 of 12
    I think that 10.2 will be the last version in which we will see any speed increases for the G3. The Apple engineers did a terrific job with 10.1, but after 10.2, Apple will be just looking at the G4 and the G5. It brings a tear to my eye when I see how well 10.1 runs on my B&W PowerMac. <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />



    [ 01-26-2002: Message edited by: Mac_OS_X_Addict ]</p>
  • Reply 5 of 12
    10.1.2 runs flawlessly on my Pismo 400 w/ a mere 192 MB of RAM and w/ far too little available HD space. Don't ask my why, but in some respects 10.1.x is more responsive on my Pismo than it is on my G4 at home (Yikes 350 w/ 256 MB RAM). It really should be OK on an iBook.
  • Reply 6 of 12
    MhZ is at this point the only solution to the Aqua sluggishness syndrome. Apple gave it all they had in 10.1 to increase speed. It only goes downhill from here as they add features/bloat.



    Quartz needs mHz and main memory bandwidth.
  • Reply 7 of 12
    emaneman Posts: 7,204member
    [quote]Originally posted by ricain:

    <strong>MhZ is at this point the only solution to the Aqua sluggishness syndrome. Apple gave it all they had in 10.1 to increase speed. It only goes downhill from here as they add features/bloat.



    Quartz needs mHz and main memory bandwidth.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    I'm sure they could speed it up a little more.
  • Reply 8 of 12
    kcmackcmac Posts: 1,051member
    yahhhh



    OS 9 just got slower and slower as it got more bloated.....



    X rules and will only get faster and so what if it will be due in part to faster machines. I kind of recall that I got a huge speed bump in OS 9 when I switched to an iMac DVSE 400. Can't wait to someday see the speed bump I will get when I get a new iMac or even a g5.



    Life goes on. Get into X. Someday, upgrade. Be happy. Life is too short.
  • Reply 9 of 12
    serranoserrano Posts: 1,806member
    [quote]Originally posted by Mac_OS_X_Addict:

    <strong>It brings a tear to my eye when I see how well 10.1 runs on my B&W PowerMac. <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>



    :cool: i'm with you on that my man
  • Reply 10 of 12
    emaneman Posts: 7,204member
    [quote]Originally posted by kcmac:

    <strong>yahhhh



    OS 9 just got slower and slower as it got more bloated.....

    </strong><hr></blockquote>



    Really? After 9.0.4, the 9.1 update seemed faster to me.
  • Reply 11 of 12
    matsumatsu Posts: 6,558member
    Speed increases will be minor. Also, whatever Apple works hard to give to us, I've no doubt that M$, Adobe, Corel, Quark, ProTools, eg most of the big players/apps will certainly take away. Anyone who thinks photoshop is gonna get faster is delusional. Apps tend to get more demanding of system resources as they evolve. Faster machines will be neccessary as OSX native software matures, no matter how fast Apple makes the OS interface.
  • Reply 12 of 12
    rraburrabu Posts: 246member
    Yeah, OSX even ran very nice on my old beige G3 266. Didn't feel too much slower than OS9, and I ran it most of the time for the stability alone. The only problems were that it couldn't use my localtalk printer and it didn't see the floppy drive at all.



    Just replaced my trusty tower last week with a 600 iBook. OSX runs just fine on this as well. In fact it's slightly more slugish I find.



    What makes the biggest difference are:

    - RAM (my iBook is waiting for more RAM)

    - hard drive speed (the tower just plain got stuff from the HD faster)
Sign In or Register to comment.