iBook 600Mhz w/ 640MB RAM - OS X performance?

wolfeye155wolfeye155
Posted:
in Current Mac Hardware edited January 2014
Hey all. Just wondering what the performance of an iBook with those specs would be. I'm not really looking for numbers just personal experience if possible. I'd like to buy an iBook after I'm finished paying off my Power Mac 933Mhz. I don't really want to pay all that extra money for a PowerBook when I won't be needing all that power. I just want a labtop that's affordable and can run OS X well.

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 12
    emaneman Posts: 7,204member
    What will you be using on it? For the most part it should perform in OS X pretty well. I feel my 500MHz iBook with 384MB performs well.
  • Reply 2 of 12
    leonisleonis Posts: 3,427member
    Why do you need 640MB of RAM on the iBook anyway? iBook is only for presentation and entertainment



    Anyway. My iBook 600 with 384MB RAM runs OS X just fine. The slow down is usually due to the slow hard disk.



    [ 04-18-2002: Message edited by: Leonis ]</p>
  • Reply 3 of 12
    tristantristan Posts: 79member
    [quote]Originally posted by Leonis:

    <strong>Why do you need 640MB of RAM on the iBook anyway? iBook is only for presentation and entertainment



    Anyway. My iBook 600 with 384MB RAM runs OS X just fine. The slow down is usually due to the slow hard disk.



    [ 04-18-2002: Message edited by: Leonis ]</strong><hr></blockquote>

    Agree, I have the same config. and I feel that I am usually slowed down by the drive being of slow RPM.
  • Reply 4 of 12
    wolfeye155wolfeye155 Posts: 425member
    I don't really NEED an iBook with 640MB of RAM but I guess it just makes sense to max it out as much as possible. I like the small size and portability of the iBook. I also like the price especially when compared to the Power Book. The only thing is that I've heard some complaints on how well the iBook (mostly 500Mhz models) runs OS X. I'm by no means expecting programs to launch instantly but I'd like something that doesn't bog down a lot and can run smoothly with 1-4 programs open at once. For what I need to do, the stock 600Mhz model would be great but that little extra speed boost is always nice.



    EDIT- I'd mostly be using the internet and instant messaging services. I guess the biggest programs I would be using are *some* Photoshop stuff and then of course games. I'm hoping that it would be able to handle some graphic extensive games like Alice or Tomb Raider. I think that by the time I buy one, they will be upgraded again. I really hope that they put a nicer graphics card in.



    [ 04-18-2002: Message edited by: wolfeye155 ]</p>
  • Reply 5 of 12
    langstraadlangstraad Posts: 4member
    My Pismo 500 with 384MB runs OS X pretty well. It only has a 4200rpm 20GB fluid-bearing (silent) drive, but it's optimized with a VM swap partition which makes a nominal amount of difference. Turning off transparency and font anti-aliasing helps to speed things up as well.



    I regularly have 20-30 lightweight applications open at once without any appreciable speed hit. However, running CPU Monitor sees 10.1.4 eating approximately 80% of the processor at all times, even when nothing is open.



    It'll never be a speed demon, though, even if 10.2 offers a large performance improvement.
  • Reply 6 of 12
    jerombajeromba Posts: 357member
    With my iceBook 600 with 384 Mb RAM, i can tell you that you will be happy for surfing, e-mail, play dvd, some games (but 8Mb of Video is not enough for full 3D games, but in this case you've got your 933 so...), some light photoshop 7, ripping cd, etc.

    But some people have said that 640 Mb made a big difference...
  • Reply 7 of 12
    fobiefobie Posts: 216member
    You can't have too much RAM, and as we all know MacOS X *loves* RAM, I'm waiting for the RAM prices to drop so I can exchange my 256MB module for a 512MB one.
  • Reply 8 of 12
    satchmosatchmo Posts: 2,699member
    [quote]Originally posted by langstraad:

    <strong>Turning off transparency and font anti-aliasing helps to speed things up as well.

    </strong><hr></blockquote>



    Where can you do that in OSX?

    While the transparancy is cool, I'd much rather have a more responsive finder.
  • Reply 9 of 12
    fobiefobie Posts: 216member
    [quote]Originally posted by satchmo:

    <strong>



    Where can you do that in OSX?

    While the transparancy is cool, I'd much rather have a more responsive finder.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    <a href="http://www.versiontracker.com/moreinfo.fcgi?id=13130&db=mac"; target="_blank">Duality</a>



    <a href="http://www.versiontracker.com/moreinfo.fcgi?id=11967&db=mac"; target="_blank">TinkerTool</a>
  • Reply 10 of 12
    nijiniji Posts: 288member
    I have a 600Mhz/640MB/30GIG. It is not slow.

    I have installed the OS X version of the new Photoshop on it.

    It is still entirely usable (and I am an impatient person) and enjoyable.

    Buy it!



    [ 04-28-2002: Message edited by: niji ]</p>
  • Reply 11 of 12
    aquaticaquatic Posts: 5,602member
    EmAn, maybe it's your memory (the screw on my AirPort riser is stuck!:eek because I only have 128, but the iBook 500 doesn't do OS X I'm looking into a little overclocking adventure to 600/100. But OS 9 toasts OS X on my iBook in terms of performance (IE, Office, other casual apps) and responsiveness. Oh, and those features like Labels, Spring Loaded Folders, ahem So, my advice to anyone buying an iBook, is stick with OS 9 if you can. Hopefully 10.2 will cure my OS X blues.
  • Reply 12 of 12
    emaneman Posts: 7,204member
    [quote]Originally posted by Aquatik:

    <strong>EmAn, maybe it's your memory (the screw on my AirPort riser is stuck!:eek because I only have 128, but the iBook 500 doesn't do OS X I'm looking into a little overclocking adventure to 600/100. But OS 9 toasts OS X on my iBook in terms of performance (IE, Office, other casual apps) and responsiveness. Oh, and those features like Labels, Spring Loaded Folders, ahem So, my advice to anyone buying an iBook, is stick with OS 9 if you can. Hopefully 10.2 will cure my OS X blues.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Well for me it seems ok. You're right though that OS 9 is faster but I'd take the stability over the speed.
Sign In or Register to comment.