By the way, in regards to some of the slowness I spoke about above, do you think it would be worth it for me to - perhaps over this long Christmas break - so simply back everything up and just wipe the drive clean and re-install my whole system?
And, if I do, is there any good reason to even put OS 9 on there? I NEVER use OS 9 at home (haven't since March, really).
Every app, utility, browser, shareware, etc. I use is OS X native at this point. Does leaving OS 9 off your system cause any problems? Shouldn't, should it?
Well... do you have any OS 9 things? I know in my case, I have a few games for OS 9 that will never be ported to OS X, like Escape Velocity (the original). But that's basically it, I don't strictly need anything with OS 9.
It will just vary from person to person. If you don't have any OS 9 applications and you will never need to use Classic mode... then you don't need to install it. Once in a while, though, you might need it. I recall when my university sent me "welcome" and "internet setup" CDs, they were little application things that only ran in OS 9... perhaps next year's CDs will be carbonized.
Of course... the little things were useless, I set it up myself. But you never know when you'll run into someone who insists on giving you some little program or "self contained DocMaker document" that requires OS 9.
Get Jaguar and just install Classic if you have the space. I'm the same way, I use Classic once every few months, but it's worth it then. @)#@#)*%ing puny 10 gig iBook drive...Get a FireWire drive
Yes. OS X needs 256 megs of RAM bare minimum. This isn't an exaggeration, OS X is different than OS 9, you have multiple apps open always. SO double that RAM at least, it's the best $30 you can spend. Better yet, buy a stick of 256!
I have LOTS of apps open all the time. Plus open top in Terminal, see that OS X apps absolutely LOVE RAM in OS X. And since I'm on an iBook it's all the more important to not have the slow hard drive used as memory. RAM is so cheap there's no reason not to buy anything smaller than 256. <a href="http://www.dealram.com"; target="_blank">www.dealram.com</a> or <a href="http://www.dealmac.com"; target="_blank">www.dealmac.com</a>
Yeah, I have to agree about the RAM. Mac OS X is a RAM HOG. It eats RAM constantly for various tasks. 256 MB should be a minimum for using OSX with more than just a few apps. Seriously. I personally recommend at least 512 MB.
Why does it use so much? There are basically two reasons. First, the window server double-buffers everything, storing giant bitmaps in RAM. Second, Mac OS X caches as much program data as possible in RAM. This makes for quicker opening when launching an app a second or third time or opening a file several times.
I have the $1,199.00 iMac at the Apple store, just pre-Jag, runnig OS X 10.1. My iMac has the same specs as the one at the Apple that has Jag. OS X came pre-installed by Apple when I bought it. So I don't see what the problem is.
<strong>I have the $1,199.00 iMac at the Apple store, just pre-Jag, runnig OS X 10.1. My iMac has the same specs as the one at the Apple that has Jag. OS X came pre-installed by Apple when I bought it. So I don't see what the problem is.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The problem is Apple. As much as I love the hardware and software, they know that X needs at least 256mb of RAM to be happy. I don't know why they still send systems out with 128. I suggest you buy some more RAM (I have 512 in my iMAC 800 superdrive and its all gravy!) first. Actually, call MacMall (they have Jag for 73 bucks) and see what kind of deal they can get you if you get some RAM and Jag together. Remember, demand a deal, they can negotiate prices.
No, technically there is no problem wth using 128 MB. Shoot, it's possible for OSX to run on as little as 64 MB, but it is hardly recommended. It is very likely that your system could get a performance boost from simply adding more RAM. I've read dozens of reports and forum posts of people saying how their system responsiveness drastically improved after upgrading to a decent amount of RAM.
Mac OS X Public Beta, 10.0, 10.1, and 10.2 all use huge amounts of RAM as I explained above. Though, you'll never get an error message or warning about running out of RAM because the OS will dynamically start paging out Virtual Memory from your hard drive as it runs out of real RAM. However, this VM is significantly slower than real RAM. When your system has to start using VM, tasks like switching apps, loading files, closing apps, and even switching between windows of already open apps will become slow.
Read the link I posted above. Some people hail John Siracusa as a god. On the technical side of things, he really knows his stuff. If you won't believe us, believe him.
[quote]If you're reading this article for tips on how to improve your Mac OS X experience, now's the time to pay attention. Aside from purchasing a new Mac, the most important thing you can do to make Mac OS X more bearable is to buy more RAM. Go ahead, don't be shy. 512MB sticks are going for as little as $50 if you look hard enough.<hr></blockquote>
EVERY incarnation of Mac OS X has said it requires 128 MB RAM. That's requires as in the bare minimum. If you want a smoother, quicker, more responsive system, you are going to have to add more RAM.
Please, read the link to Siracusa's article that I posted above. It applies to 10.2 just as much as 10.1.
Comments
And, if I do, is there any good reason to even put OS 9 on there? I NEVER use OS 9 at home (haven't since March, really).
Every app, utility, browser, shareware, etc. I use is OS X native at this point. Does leaving OS 9 off your system cause any problems? Shouldn't, should it?
It will just vary from person to person. If you don't have any OS 9 applications and you will never need to use Classic mode... then you don't need to install it. Once in a while, though, you might need it. I recall when my university sent me "welcome" and "internet setup" CDs, they were little application things that only ran in OS 9... perhaps next year's CDs will be carbonized.
Of course... the little things were useless, I set it up myself. But you never know when you'll run into someone who insists on giving you some little program or "self contained DocMaker document" that requires OS 9.
Jaguar is much faster, even on my iBook 500.
<strong>
It damn near kills me to have to use 9.2.2 everyday at work.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'd damn near kill anyone just to be able to use OS 9.2.2 at work!
Sincerely,
Win2K user at work
Here are my system specs:
15-inch LCD flat screen
700MHz PowerPC G4
NVIDIA GeForce2 MX
128MB SDRAM
40GB Ultra ATA hard drive
CD-RW Drive
OS X 10.1.5 and OS 9(pre-installed thing)
Do you foresee any problems, will Jag be ok on this system?
Why does it use so much? There are basically two reasons. First, the window server double-buffers everything, storing giant bitmaps in RAM. Second, Mac OS X caches as much program data as possible in RAM. This makes for quicker opening when launching an app a second or third time or opening a file several times.
Here's Siracusa's take on it:
<a href="http://arstechnica.com/reviews/01q4/macosx-10.1/macosx-10.1-6.html"; target="_blank">http://arstechnica.com/reviews/01q4/macosx-10.1/macosx-10.1-6.html</a>;
<strong>I have the $1,199.00 iMac at the Apple store, just pre-Jag, runnig OS X 10.1. My iMac has the same specs as the one at the Apple that has Jag. OS X came pre-installed by Apple when I bought it. So I don't see what the problem is.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The problem is Apple. As much as I love the hardware and software, they know that X needs at least 256mb of RAM to be happy. I don't know why they still send systems out with 128. I suggest you buy some more RAM (I have 512 in my iMAC 800 superdrive and its all gravy!) first. Actually, call MacMall (they have Jag for 73 bucks) and see what kind of deal they can get you if you get some RAM and Jag together. Remember, demand a deal, they can negotiate prices.
Mac OS X Public Beta, 10.0, 10.1, and 10.2 all use huge amounts of RAM as I explained above. Though, you'll never get an error message or warning about running out of RAM because the OS will dynamically start paging out Virtual Memory from your hard drive as it runs out of real RAM. However, this VM is significantly slower than real RAM. When your system has to start using VM, tasks like switching apps, loading files, closing apps, and even switching between windows of already open apps will become slow.
Read the link I posted above. Some people hail John Siracusa as a god. On the technical side of things, he really knows his stuff. If you won't believe us, believe him.
[quote]If you're reading this article for tips on how to improve your Mac OS X experience, now's the time to pay attention. Aside from purchasing a new Mac, the most important thing you can do to make Mac OS X more bearable is to buy more RAM. Go ahead, don't be shy. 512MB sticks are going for as little as $50 if you look hard enough.<hr></blockquote>
EVERY incarnation of Mac OS X has said it requires 128 MB RAM. That's requires as in the bare minimum. If you want a smoother, quicker, more responsive system, you are going to have to add more RAM.
Please, read the link to Siracusa's article that I posted above. It applies to 10.2 just as much as 10.1.
<strong>No, technically there is no problem wth using 128 MB. </strong><hr></blockquote>
I agree. But remember I said it needs 256 to be happy...not functional.