OS X and original iMacs (rev a-d)
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...
Its already got a bigger/faster HD and the memory will be upgraded from its current 192 MB -> 384.
Just fishing for feedback...
Comments
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.
Er... MacOS X?
When I figure it out, I'll let you know how it handles 10.1. It's got 160MB, by the way.
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)
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".
Also quicktime movies are extremely choppy and drop frames like crazy. (this is all due to lack of rage support)
[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 >256 MB. <hr></blockquote>
you should not have to make adjustments in your work pattern to compensate for horrible OS performance.
<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.
<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.
Hope all of you have better luck.
<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.
thanks
matthew
[ 11-28-2001: Message edited by: zonetuke ]</p>
<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.