Mac OS X on different hardware
Well, I have by now, tried Mac OS X on many different hardware configurations, and I have compiled this little list of recommendations, based on my experience
First: This applys only to machines with a MINIMUM of 256 MB RAM (OS X really needs that - at least!) and Mac OS X 10.1.X
So here goes:
Not recommendable (very slow!):
233-266 MHz G3 (iMacs and beige Power Macs, PowerBooks)
Partly Usable...slow:
300 MHz G3 (iMacs, beige and blue Power Macs, iBooks, PowerBooks)
Usable..but somewhat slow:
350-500 MHz G3 (Blue Power Macs, iMacs, iBooks, PowerBooks)
350-400 MHz G4 (Power Macs, PowerBook)
Fully Usable...but still a little sluggish in some operations:
600-700 MHz G3 (iMacs, iBook)
450-733 MHz G4 (Single and dual Power Macs, Cube, PowerBooks)
Fully Usable and fast:
Dual 800 MHz Power Mac
867 MHz Power Mac
Fully Usable and VERY fast!:
1+ GHz G4 or any G5 (well, one can always hope )
(also note that I have, of course, not tried every machine, but I have tried a lot, and think I can imagine the general performance on those I haven't tried)
EDIT: Of course OS X is "usable" on any supported machine, but when I say "usable", it means for general application use - just booting, fetching mail and writing a one page letter in Appleworks, doesn't count, sorry )
[ 12-28-2001: Message edited by: Power Apple ]</p>
First: This applys only to machines with a MINIMUM of 256 MB RAM (OS X really needs that - at least!) and Mac OS X 10.1.X
So here goes:
Not recommendable (very slow!):
233-266 MHz G3 (iMacs and beige Power Macs, PowerBooks)
Partly Usable...slow:
300 MHz G3 (iMacs, beige and blue Power Macs, iBooks, PowerBooks)
Usable..but somewhat slow:
350-500 MHz G3 (Blue Power Macs, iMacs, iBooks, PowerBooks)
350-400 MHz G4 (Power Macs, PowerBook)
Fully Usable...but still a little sluggish in some operations:
600-700 MHz G3 (iMacs, iBook)
450-733 MHz G4 (Single and dual Power Macs, Cube, PowerBooks)
Fully Usable and fast:
Dual 800 MHz Power Mac
867 MHz Power Mac
Fully Usable and VERY fast!:
1+ GHz G4 or any G5 (well, one can always hope )
(also note that I have, of course, not tried every machine, but I have tried a lot, and think I can imagine the general performance on those I haven't tried)
EDIT: Of course OS X is "usable" on any supported machine, but when I say "usable", it means for general application use - just booting, fetching mail and writing a one page letter in Appleworks, doesn't count, sorry )
[ 12-28-2001: Message edited by: Power Apple ]</p>
Comments
<strong>I don't know if my iMac was "very slow" It was slow thought maybe on the slow side of slow. Some things were a tad snappy. Like the genie effect always seemed to go rather smoothly, at least. Made me think that Apple put effort into the superficial things they want to show off in the keynote and then forget about the important stuff like basic hardware support and needed software components.</strong><hr></blockquote>
jeez, the genie effect works for you? on my G4/400 is always stutters with anything that is more than a basic page. nevermind trying to minimize a playing qt movie with a high bitrate. it could take seconds for it to register the click
[ 12-28-2001: Message edited by: corvette ]</p>
Anyway...The 333 MHz iMac should be in the same category as the 300 MHz G3 (Partly Usable...slow).
EDIT: I haven't tried the PowerBook G3/294, so I don't know if it should be in the 233-266 or 300-333 MHz category...anyone care to help?
[ 12-28-2001: Message edited by: Power Apple ]</p>
you could also add a 180Mhz 604e to that list.
it ran. just really couldn't do anything though
maybe if it was able to use the 2nd 180Mhz 604e it would be sort of usable
<strong>Just a note: I have a 500 MHz iBook, and OS X is plenty fast . . . due to the fact that I loaded the sucker with 384 MB RAM. Similarly, even my 266 MHz beige G3 runs quite nicely. But I had to upgrade the graphics card to a Radeon and shove the RAM up to 512 MB. Memory and video cards seems to do wonders for OS X performance far greater than the CPU, which furthers my feeling that Quartz is simply too demanding on today's hardware and that OS X is a memory hog.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I can't argue with your feelings, I can only try to reason with you
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)
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. Of course, since you went from extremely slow graphics to a fast graphics card, the difference is bigger in your case) but I can't honestly recommend the experience.
EDIT: your machine with Radeon and 512 MB Ram, would probably climb one step up the ladder and join the "Partly Usable" category
(edit2: the iMac had 288 MB, not 256 - installed them myself for a friend. btw, don't forget to update firmware when installing a 256 module in a revB (233) iMac - I didn't know at first...grrrr )
[ 12-28-2001: Message edited by: Power Apple ]</p>
1st - Does not factor in video upgrades which have a huge impact on performance and can be made to Beige G3s and B&Ws.
2nd - Claims only the highend works very well, simply not true I get very good performance on a couple of non-G4 systems [Beige G3 400 with 384MB and Rage128 and a Pismo] and on what the above list would claim a low end G4 system [PB G4].
3rd - The list doesn't factor in RAM, and let me tell you 128MB on a 400+ G3 it is slow, but with 384MB+ it is zippy. UNIX loves RAM.
I get very good performance on a couple of non-G4 systems [Beige G3 400 with 384MB and Rage128 and a Pismo] and on what the above list would claim a low end G4 system [PB G4].</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, I simply disagree with you. I set up a PowerBook G4/400 with 384 MB RAM for a friend and installed Mac OS X 10.1 (clean).
For his needs (Office, Explorer, Mail, iTunes, DVD Player etc.) it was usable - absolutely! but it still felt "somewhat slow"..considering how fast the machine really is.
(EDIT: actually, DVD Player is not that usable on a PowerBook yet (at least not for my friend), since S-VHS out is not yet properly supported under Mac OS X (hope they fix it real soon!))
[ 12-28-2001: Message edited by: Power Apple ]</p>
<strong>I can't agree with the list, here are my reasons:
1st - Does not factor in video upgrades which have a huge impact on performance and can be made to Beige G3s and B&Ws.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, The list assumes the machines are fitted with the standard video. I really can't say how big the difference is on a beige G3
But a video upgrade does NOT have an overall huge impact on a blue G3 using Mac OS X (except for games and QuickTime, of course).
my home machine is blue/white G3/400 with Radeon, 576 MB RAM, 40 GB (fast) 7200 rpm HD and 10.1.2, so I speak from experience - but of course I can only speak for myself (btw, I have sold it, but keeps it until my new machine arrives - I'm waiting until MacWorld to place my order (I should mention that I sold it to an organisation that had to spend the money this year, so I'm not cheating anyone, I'm just lucky ) )
[ 12-28-2001: Message edited by: Power Apple ]</p>
For some reason alot of those machines come stock...they don't pack the RAM in like proper Mac OS X-heads should...
saddest thing I ever saw..a DP 800 with 128 MBs of RAM at Fry's. I almost wanted to pull the plug on it...
<strong>
Well, The list assumes the machines are fitted with the standard video. I really can't say how big the difference is on a beige G3
But a video upgrade does NOT have an overall huge impact on a blue G3 using Mac OS X (except for games and QuickTime, of course).
</strong><hr></blockquote>
What your not considering is that the Rage II/Pro/LT doesn't have 2D/3D acceleration in OS X. So upgrading to a Radeon will make a big difference since it does have accel. Going from the Rage 128 to a Radeon probably won't yield any performace increase in the finder since their both supported in X & their not the limiting factor.
Oh, and as far as video goes, on a Beige G3 it makes a massive difference.
<strong>Did you check the RAM at the Apple Store?
For some reason alot of those machines come stock...they don't pack the RAM in like proper Mac OS X-heads should...
saddest thing I ever saw..a DP 800 with 128 MBs of RAM at Fry's. I almost wanted to pull the plug on it...</strong><hr></blockquote>
You know, I didn't even think about cvhecking that. Funny tho, I checked the system profiler for the speed but forgot to look down to the ram, lol.
Still, I hope 10.2 is a lot faster.