OS X and original iMacs (rev a-d)

xoolxool
Posted:
in macOS edited January 2014
I love OS X on my Ti 500, but now I'm eager to install it on my girlfriend's rev d iMac 333. So what kind of experience should I expect? Will it really be that bad?



Its already got a bigger/faster HD and the memory will be upgraded from its current 192 MB -> 384.



Just fishing for feedback...
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 22
    masonmcdmasonmcd Posts: 43member
    10.1 is relatively snappy on my Rev B with 384 MB. Stock box otherwise.



    Don't keep opening and closing apps, or resizing windows and you'll be fine. After all, OS X is all about task management, so leave all of your apps open if you have >256 MB.
  • Reply 2 of 22
    jutusjutus Posts: 272member
    Anyone running X on the *original* iMac? You know, the target system for Rhapsody?



    Er... MacOS X?
  • Reply 3 of 22
    bellebelle Posts: 1,574member
    I'm trying to set up my old Bondi iMac as a remote server for backing up stuff, and intend to put 10.1 on it. I haven't got far, though, because for some reason it refuses to mount CD-Rs, though it happily mounts CD-ROMs.



    When I figure it out, I'll let you know how it handles 10.1. It's got 160MB, by the way.
  • Reply 4 of 22
    cosmocosmo Posts: 662member
    I'm typing this from my rev D imac in 10.1.1



    It is pretty snappy, just as fast as 9.2 in most things. The only problems i have is with scrolling and resizing. I think this is due to lack of rage pro support.



    Overall the experience is good, i wish itunes used less processor time though.

    O well

    (i have 256 megs of ram btw)
  • Reply 5 of 22
    ghost_user_nameghost_user_name Posts: 22,667member
    OS X is dog slow on my Rev C iMac with 320 MB. It's just slow and dumpy.



    Voice commands don't work with the internal mic. I don't think it's the crappy internal mic because it used to work fine under OS 9. So no cool voice chess for me.



    As always the support for the Rage Pro is a joke. I even wrote a letter to Apple about this. The sent me an email pointing me to the k-base page telling me to turn down the bit depth of the monitor. Great Apple. You fail to support my video card then tell me the solution is to turn down the bit depth



    10.1 is better but still long from being there. This is is still not finished and not writen with rec A-D iMacs in mind.



    So I say, "Don't bother".
  • Reply 6 of 22
    cosmocosmo Posts: 662member
    Yes, turning down the bit depth helps a bit, but you shouldn't be forced to do this just to achieve decent performance!



    Also quicktime movies are extremely choppy and drop frames like crazy. (this is all due to lack of rage support)
  • Reply 7 of 22
    applenutapplenut Posts: 5,768member
    don't do it. it's a waste. Apple could care less about those machines and it shows. Remember when the iMac was suppose to be the ideal mac for OS X? so much for that crap.



    [quote]

    Don't keep opening and closing apps, or resizing windows and you'll be fine. After all, OS X is all about task management, so leave all of your apps open if you have &gt;256 MB. <hr></blockquote>



    you should not have to make adjustments in your work pattern to compensate for horrible OS performance.
  • Reply 8 of 22
    emaneman Posts: 7,204member
    Before I let my brother-in-law borrow my Rev C iMac with 160MB for a while, I had installed 10.1 and it actually ran pretty well.
  • Reply 9 of 22
    masonmcdmasonmcd Posts: 43member
    applenut, I haven't adjusted anything. I keep apps open, and I keep window sizes the same. Just like I did in OS 9. But it's not like I'm a PS pro or something. Just email, web browsing, and Office. If I was a pro, I wouldn't have an iMac, now, would I?
  • Reply 10 of 22
    xoolxool Posts: 2,460member
    [quote]Originally posted by Belle:

    <strong>... for some reason it refuses to mount CD-Rs, though it happily mounts CD-ROMs.

    </strong><hr></blockquote>



    Our rev d iMac also has this problem with CD-R media. Its quite anoying, especially as its CD drive works with older discs.
  • Reply 11 of 22
    nebagakidnebagakid Posts: 2,692member
    they may get it right eventually <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
  • Reply 12 of 22
    cosmocosmo Posts: 662member
    [quote]Originally posted by Belle:

    <strong>for some reason it refuses to mount CD-Rs, though it happily mounts CD-ROMs.</strong><hr></blockquote>





    My brother's iMac (Rev D) had this problem as well, however it was while it was still under warranty, so we just took it in, and they replaced the CD drive. Problem solved.



    One other problem with running X on my Rev D is iTunes. Its not that it doesn't work, but it takes a lot of processor power (25-45%), and, in turn slows everything else down.

    Overall 10.1 is still very usable.
  • Reply 13 of 22
    bradbowerbradbower Posts: 1,068member
    My Rev A iMac performs better than my Rev C iMac, and better yet than my neighbor's Rev D. The Rev A doesn't use a Rage Pro, it uses a Rage IIc or something, and OS X is fairly snappy on it. It takes forever to open Illustrator (10), but then again it always has. I run http/ftp/afp/ssh/telnet servers on it, occasionally stream mp3s, it works great. I use it for my main machine too, Office, email, graphics, music, IRC/AIM/etc, and I even play The Sims and other games on it. It's such a great machine, though I admit I've maxed out the VRAM and upgraded the RAM. Also it can read CD-Rs just fine (in fact that's how I got OS X but don't tell anyone)!



    Hope all of you have better luck.
  • Reply 14 of 22
    artman @_@artman @_@ Posts: 2,546member
    I have an iMac G3 700 with 768 MB RAM and OS X runs fine...but it's GUI is WAY too crowded on an iMac screen. Kind of disappointing since I don't think I'll be getting another Mac for some time (unless I win a lottery...)
  • Reply 15 of 22
    bogiebogie Posts: 407member
    I don't know how the OS X GUI can be considered crowded on an iMac's 15" display since it looks fine on my Pismo and on my friend's iBook dual USB. The majority of OS X Macs out there today have about 15" screens.
  • Reply 16 of 22
    amorphamorph Posts: 7,112member
    The iMac's CRT looks best at 800x600. 1024 x 768 causes eyestrain. Consequently, most of the iMacs I've seen run at 800x600, and OS X wasn't really designed to fit into that resolution.
  • Reply 17 of 22
    emaneman Posts: 7,204member
    [quote]Originally posted by Amorph:

    <strong>The iMac's CRT looks best at 800x600. 1024 x 768 causes eyestrain. Consequently, most of the iMacs I've seen run at 800x600, and OS X wasn't really designed to fit into that resolution.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    I used to run 1024x768 on my iMac and I thought it was fine, and it was even better in OS X.
  • Reply 18 of 22
    zonetukezonetuke Posts: 88member
    Anyone have an opinion on whether upgrading an iMac 350 with 192 MB to X is worth it? I fear that OS 9 is faster than X on this machine. Can anyone confirm or deny this?



    thanks



    matthew



    [ 11-28-2001: Message edited by: zonetuke ]</p>
  • Reply 19 of 22
    emaneman Posts: 7,204member
    [quote]Originally posted by zonetuke:

    <strong>Anyone have an opinion on whether upgrading an iMac 350 with 192 MB to X is worth it? I fear that OS 9 is faster than X on this machine. Can anyone confirm or deny this?



    thanks



    matthew



    [ 11-28-2001: Message edited by: zonetuke ]</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Try it. If it's not fast enough for you then go back to OS 9. Simple enough.
  • Reply 20 of 22
    torifiletorifile Posts: 4,024member
    OS 9 is faster on every machine! It's not about speed, people. When are you going to realize that? I'm not saying that you shouldn't be concerned about speed, but that's not the only measure of a good OS.
Sign In or Register to comment.