My mom's finally getting round to buying some more RAM for her old iMac, and I take it as a golden opportunity to X her...
Now, does neone have experiences with performance on iMacs? I think it's 400MHz G3, and it'll have 192MB RAM after the upgrade...
Any thoughts?
Comments
stick with 9 unless you can go beyond that amount of RAM.
Thx for the intel m8s!
If you don't (like me, and thousands of others) you will have an iMac with a dark, flickering screen that will eventually fry if you keep it on longer than 30 minutes
The 10.2 installer thinks it's installing on an LCD iMac, and the video connection is all wrong for a CRT.
Good luck.
Even though 28 days after I bought it the hard drive failed (repaired in 2 days through Apple Care) after that and after countless installs, updates and myself moving to OS X completely last Fall...I have had no serious issues at all (knock wood). All periferals work and have always worked fine. The OS is "snappy" and applications run better or as fast as in OS 9.
I think the 768 MB RAM does help performance...always has with Macs.
My mom same G3 400 with 392MB Ram runs fine for office apps and browsing + bridge games in classic
My slowest 6 machines are iMac 333. Tray loading not slot loading.
The lowest amount of RAM is 160. OSX 10.2.3 runs fine on these. NO it is not fast but it runs fine.
I actually was running OSX on bondi iMac (266) with 96megs of RAM. Yes it ran, but it was very slow, eventually turned it into a scanning machien, because UMAX is not writing drivers for their past scanners. (BTW I will NEVER by UMAX again because of this)
Good luck, I understand what it is like to live on a budget, every $1 counts. Some don't understand this, they get to buy new computers every year or two.
<strong>not enough ram for that machine in OS X.
stick with 9 unless you can go beyond that amount of RAM.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Not true. I am currently on a 333mhz iMac with 192 RAM. It's no speed machine, but it's very usable.
<strong>
Not true. I am currently on a 333mhz iMac with 192 RAM. It's no speed machine, but it's very usable.</strong><hr></blockquote>
what isnt true?
i dont think think his mom is going to gain much except frustration if everything she used to do is now sluggish and just "usable"
Had an iMac rev a (233) with 384 MB, which I found too slow to use in 10.1, but acceptable in 10.2.
I am on a flower-power iMac right now - (500 mhz G3, 640 MB). A little sluggish, but perfectly useable, and my wife thinks it is zippy.
Fish
<strong>
what isnt true?
i dont think think his mom is going to gain much except frustration if everything she used to do is now sluggish and just "usable"</strong><hr></blockquote>
Here's all I know:
I have had the same machine since August 1999 (because I can't afford a new one). I started with mac os 8.5, then I used 8.6, then I used 9. Now I use Jaguar. Sure, Jag isn't as fast as 9, but the stability is worth it and I would rather use it that ANY other OS I've had on this machine (I've also messed with Linux and open source stuff).
Unless his mom is doing Photoshop work, Video work, or something similar that is taxing on the processor, I really doubt she will have problems. I use this machine for everyday stuff (web, e-mail, etc), but I also use it to do image work with the GIMP (not all of us can afford Photoshop) and web page work. I think his mom's machine with a lot of RAM would be fine (unless she is a graphic artist or a developer). If you want it to be zippy, he should go buy her a new machine. You can't expect an old machine to work like a new machine.
In the end it's up to him. I was just trying to help because I have a similar machine using Jag.
[ 01-17-2003: Message edited by: drumbug1 ]</p>