OS X 10.2 and older Macs

Posted:
in macOS edited January 2014
I've got an older iMac (266mhz) with 256MB of RAM. Does anyone curently have 10.1 running on one of these, and if so do they like it. Secondly, would 10.2 yield any performance gains on older iMacs?



Thanks!!!!

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 12
    dxp4acudxp4acu Posts: 45member
    [quote]Originally posted by Composer:

    <strong>I've got an older iMac (266mhz) with 256MB of RAM. Does anyone curently have 10.1 running on one of these, and if so do they like it. Secondly, would 10.2 yield any performance gains on older iMacs?



    Thanks!!!!</strong><hr></blockquote>
  • Reply 2 of 12
    johnrpjohnrp Posts: 357member
    I have a G3 266 ruinning OSX like a dream



    Not the fastest thing in the world but it is solid and a good workhorse.



    (It is crammed with ram which seems to help)

  • Reply 3 of 12
    dwsdws Posts: 108member
    [quote]Originally posted by johnrp:

    <strong>(It is crammed with ram which seems to help)

    </strong><hr></blockquote>



    This is THE most important aspects of running OS X on older Macs. Put as much memory in the thing as you can afford. The performance increase will be dramatic. If you double your 256, you'll be happy that you did.



  • Reply 4 of 12
    nebagakidnebagakid Posts: 2,692member
    I imagine 10.2 will be faster

    RAM is very important, need lot o' RAM <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />
  • Reply 5 of 12
    escherescher Posts: 1,811member
    [quote]Originally posted by dws:

    <strong>Put as much memory in the thing as you can afford.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    I have 192MB RAM in my Rev.A Bondi iMac (233Mhz). I deleted 10.0 because it ran too slow on it and didn't bother with 10.1. But I was hoping that 10.2 would run smoothly on it. Am I naive to think that 10.2 will be usable on my iMac/233/192?



    (Thank goodness OS X runs just fine on my iBook/500/320.)



    Escher
  • Reply 6 of 12
    composercomposer Posts: 212member
    Thanks for all the great input folks! All things considered, I may just put Darwin on and leave it at that. I'm planning to use it as a quick-and-dirty web server. The OS X front end would have been nice, but I don't think I'll waste the effort.



    With much thanks,



    Composer
  • Reply 7 of 12
    reidreid Posts: 190member
    Well, there seems to be a huge difference of opinion as to what is usable or not, in terms of speed. On my Bondi iMac (233/288MB), the Public Beta was very slow. But, I still used it. I also used 10.0. With 10.1, I got an enormous speed increase, and while the interface was not as responsive as 9, and QuickTime playback still didn't work, I was happy to trade those niceties in for the stability and beauty of OS X.



    When 10.1.5 came out, I was thrilled that I could once again play QuickTime movies. Ain't I just a sucker. So, when 10.2 arrives, I'll install it. But, as Apple has stated, G3 users like me "may notice a slight increase in speed." So, since I'm happy with it as is, any modest improvement will be cause for celebration.
  • Reply 8 of 12
    dxp4acudxp4acu Posts: 45member
    They have stated that G3s will receive quite a bit of speed from 10.2. I already use it on my PB G3 233 with 288 mb of RAM, and it is almost up to speed with 9, because of the RAM. Some things its pretty slow with, but trust me. Use it!!!! 10.2 will be amazing. I would pay 200 bucks for it, but 69 will suffice. Have a good day!
  • Reply 9 of 12
    pbpb Posts: 4,233member
    [quote]Originally posted by dxp4acu:

    <strong>I already use it on my PB G3 233 with 288 mb of RAM, and it is almost up to speed with 9, because of the RAM.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Are you sure that it is the RAM? If it is almost up to speed with 9 (but then in what tasks?), it could be due to a better support for the RagePro LT chip. Are there GA and/or GL drivers for this chip in your 10.2 installation? (normally in /System/Library/Extensions)
  • Reply 10 of 12
    progmacprogmac Posts: 1,850member
    [quote]Originally posted by johnrp:

    <strong>I have a G3 266 ruinning OSX like a dream

    </strong><hr></blockquote>



    That's what I'm afraid it will do to my Beige G3/300. Long live OS 9!!
  • Reply 11 of 12
    hudsonhudson Posts: 22member
    [quote]Originally posted by Reid:

    <strong>Well, there seems to be a huge difference of opinion as to what is usable or not, in terms of speed. On my Bondi iMac (233/288MB), the Public Beta was very slow. But, I still used it. I also used 10.0. With 10.1, I got an enormous speed increase, and while the interface was not as responsive as 9, and QuickTime playback still didn't work, I was happy to trade those niceties in for the stability and beauty of OS X.



    When 10.1.5 came out, I was thrilled that I could once again play QuickTime movies. Ain't I just a sucker. So, when 10.2 arrives, I'll install it. But, as Apple has stated, G3 users like me "may notice a slight increase in speed." So, since I'm happy with it as is, any modest improvement will be cause for celebration.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    This has been my experience, too, with a rev. B iMac and 256MB RAM. Public Beta was mostly unusable (no decent apps anyway), 10.0.x was quirky and fairly slow, 10.1.x&lt;5 was very usable and 10.1.5 restored the ability to use QuickTime (though not OpenGL with acceleration). Considering how extremely stable the system is, I wouldn't even consider going back to OS 9. Sure, it's not as 'Snappy' as OS 9 but for me that's been a small price to pay for all the advantages I receive from X.
  • Reply 12 of 12
    emaneman Posts: 7,204member
    I ran 10.1 for like a day on my 266MHz iMac with 160MB RAM before I gave the iMac to my brother-in-law. It wasn't as bad as i expected but of course it wasn't the greatest. It was definately useable, though.
Sign In or Register to comment.