The other thing is - why is Apple dropping support for the Pro machines of 1998 yet still supporting the consumer machines of 1998? now that doesn't make sense - considering the Pro machines are faster. Panther will be Faster on all Macs so there isn't a reason to drop support. at min Panther should be the final OS as 2004 will see the last of the Beige G3 users upgrade to a new Machine (or at the latest first half 2005).
I personally will somehow get Panther on this Mac. I need it for work. That side bar in the Finder, Open, and Save dialogues is going to save alot of time.
The thing is, the iMacs are regarded as new machines, whereas the Beige ones as old. And indeed, there is a reason, the Beige models look older, and they have an OldWorld ROM. [Edit: fixed spelling]
someone needs to make a spreadsheet with the types of macs since 98 so this would be a good reference source
i have slot load imac dv 400 with 640 ram 10.2.6 no problems my only problem is that i can't get mail to work with adelphia.net cable broadband so i just use the webmail
Mac OS X Public Beta was mid-2000. Mac OS X 10.0 was released on March 24, 2001.
Back when all this was happening (when did Apple buy NeXT, 1997?) there was a considerable amount of indecision among those buying new machines about whether they'd run the new OS. Originally it was supposed to be all PCI models (and in fact those do run with XPostFacto) but they decided to make the cut off with the Beige models. They started selling them as "ready for OS X". This is the main reason why they just lost that lawsuit for not providing DVD support or graphics drivers for those models.
Like I said, there's nothing inherent in these machines that would make them incapable of running Panther - it's not that different from Jag - and an upgraded Beige machine can be quite a bit more capable than models that are still supported).
if you're a student, buy the 1 ghz g4 emac with a 512 mb chip from apple for $990, then get another 512 mb for another $100, for a total of $1090. i just saved you $200, and no additional cost of monitor. if you're still struggling with a beige non-upgraded g3, you'll even be happy with the 800 MHz g4 and all that ram for an additional $100 off.
then retire the beige g3 back to os 9 to act as a simple file server and internet router and such on a basic ethernet network. if it's not running much, it'll be as screamin' fast and rock-solid as you remember when you first unpacked it.
if you're a student, buy the 1 ghz g4 emac with a 512 mb chip from apple for $990, then get another 512 mb for another $100, for a total of $1090. i just saved you $200, and no additional cost of monitor. if you're still struggling with a beige non-upgraded g3, you'll even be happy with the 800 MHz g4 and all that ram for an additional $100 off.
then retire the beige g3 back to os 9 to act as a simple file server and internet router and such on a basic ethernet network. if it's not running much, it'll be as screamin' fast and rock-solid as you remember when you first unpacked it.
I was mentioning one of the average prices (mid-iBook, high-eMac, low-iMac/PowerMac.)
I was mentioning one of the average prices (mid-iBook, high-eMac, low-iMac/PowerMac.)
my point is there are deals to be had, and costs to be saved, but it does require the consumer to comparison shop at least a little bit and to assess their own computing needs first. sure, apple does set their market price for shipping models, but you can often get bundles from other retailers that make it a significantly better value, too. you mention the average prices, but i guarantee if someone has been getting by this long with a beige g3 and shoehorning os x onto it, then their needs for power are outweighed by their need to run os x. making broad generalizations based on averages without taking specific needs into account is a sure-fire way to end up paying too much. and too many people will just blindly go "i must buy the full retail price from the apple store in order to upgrade," which perpetuates many myths about the higher costs of macs vs. pc's.
my point is there are deals to be had, and costs to be saved, but it does require the consumer to comparison shop at least a little bit and to assess their own computing needs first. sure, apple does set their market price for shipping models, but you can often get bundles from other retailers that make it a significantly better value, too. you mention the average prices, but i guarantee if someone has been getting by this long with a beige g3 and shoehorning os x onto it, then their needs for power are outweighed by their need to run os x. making broad generalizations based on averages without taking specific needs into account is a sure-fire way to end up paying too much. and too many people will just blindly go "i must buy the full retail price from the apple store in order to upgrade," which perpetuates many myths about the higher costs of macs vs. pc's.
i guarantee if someone has been getting by this long with a beige g3 and shoehorning os x onto it, then their needs for power are outweighed by their need to run os x.
The "slowness" of OS X isn't absolute across all determining factors. Yes, the interface is slower - but that can be said for any machine that will boot OS 9. One of the big changes for Panther is that *the interface drawing is faster*. That means that older, slower machines will benefit the most - the faster the processor you're using, the more it masks inefficient code.
And OS X isn't "shoehorned" into a Beige G3 - this is (on 10.2) a supported configuration. On a well maintained system it will run decently, on an upgraded one (more RAM, decent HD, faster processor) it will run well - better than a number of the systems that are still going to be supported in 10.3.
The main problem I have with dropping support for machines that were previously supported is that Apple has the habit of introducing new APIs in every major iteration of the OS. If developers want to use those new functions (and believe me they will, just ask people who try to use 10.1.x systems to run new applications) they can either require users to upgrade or they have to maintain a separate code branch that tries to replicate the same behavior for both systems. Worse, some will just decide to use their custom code across both branches and this is how you end up with stuff like the lack of long filename support in some Carbon ports.
Anyway I think this is a stupid move on Apple's part. They can drop full-on "support" for those machines but it should allow for an unsupported install for the newly abandoned machines and that would stop the bitching and still let them accomplish the same thing.
Apple wants to get rid of OldWorld Macs. They are a bad memory from the era of worthless proprietory Macs. Not only that, Apple spends time maintaining the headache that is OldWorld support. NO non Classic OS was or intended to be run on those Macs. It's so easy for Apple to just say "f*** it, take the code out".
Didn't the PoweBook G3 Series ('Wallstreet') have an OldWorld ROM too?
Yes they do.
Another problem that will occur for people who will use XFacto to get Panther on there Beige G3, is - I for example have a Rev A with no slave drive support unless I boot into Mac OS X (which I run 100% of the time, and have been doing so for 3 years). Mac OS X patches the Rev A ROMS to support Slave Drives. I now have a 80GB and a 120GB drives in my Beige G3 MT Rev A.
Since Apple has taken out the software ROM patch to allow slave drives on Rev A beige G3, Xfacto most likely won't fix that so people with slave drives will loose there second HD.
People running OS X on old computers should just get new computers. You'll be so much happier. Quartz Extreme is a biggy, the G4 is also. The new iApps need them and new tech like Airport Extreme and Bluetooth need new comps too. Buck it up make the jump!
-If you can-
However Panther runs great when "tweaked":
My -only- test system for Panther is a G3/350. I figure that if it runs great on that system, then it will be a viable system for many users.
What you can do to bring your G3 close to G4 speeds:
1. Get a radeon of somesort, I believe an ATi Rage128(16MB) will work, but that's not a pretty graphics card, but will "work." Get a Radeon if you can. The Mac Radeon (original) is even a much better card than the stock ATi Rage 128.
2. Run PCI Extreme!. Change settings to support Quartz Extreme over the PCI bus.
3. Run Xbench again. Save the results and compare with speeds from before.
4. You could also do an optimize to speed things up if they become slow.
Another problem that will occur for people who will use XFacto to get Panther on there Beige G3, is - I for example have a Rev A with no slave drive support unless I boot into Mac OS X (which I run 100% of the time, and have been doing so for 3 years). Mac OS X patches the Rev A ROMS to support Slave Drives. I now have a 80GB and a 120GB drives in my Beige G3 MT Rev A.
Since Apple has taken out the software ROM patch to allow slave drives on Rev A beige G3, Xfacto most likely won't fix that so people with slave drives will loose there second HD.
Unless, of course, you upgrade your rev A Beige G3 with a rev B ROM chip. My rev A beige G3 266 AV is an ultra beast.... too many mods to mention, including a custom Newer Tech CPU upgrade. My Ti forced this box to just collect dust. My new G5 (whenever it comes) will send it somewhere else.
As long as your G3 have built in USB it will work.
Builds 3X-49 tried so far
It runs just fine on my iBook Clam 366 (192 megs), I use it to aquire and print thousands of images at a time, and to sort and arrange over 500 folders of photos, some folders with over 5,000 items in them, the people that say it is slow are completly CLUELESS.
Safari load, 4 sec
Folder with 4,000 images, ALL OPTIONS ON, icons to 128, previews on, info on, etc. 14 s
Mail 4 sec
iPhoto 2 load 7 seconds
Import of 20 1 meg images via USB (memory stick), 48 secs
Well, I'm just going to add my 2 cents. I have a PowerMac G3 Blue and White 400mhz with 384mb, and it runs just fine with Jag and Panther. I had it running Jaguar for a while and it ran decently. All the iApps were fine. Panther runs even faster!!! Way faster infact. Anyone with an older Mac should definitly make the upgrade to Panther. The speed and performance improvement is tremendous!! I feel like I've upgraded to a G4 500mhz when I still, in reality, have the same computer. I dont know what Apple did, but Panther is just amazing. It makes your computer feel new again. Snappy, quick, and speedy.
Comments
Originally posted by Mac Write
The other thing is - why is Apple dropping support for the Pro machines of 1998 yet still supporting the consumer machines of 1998? now that doesn't make sense - considering the Pro machines are faster. Panther will be Faster on all Macs so there isn't a reason to drop support. at min Panther should be the final OS as 2004 will see the last of the Beige G3 users upgrade to a new Machine (or at the latest first half 2005).
I personally will somehow get Panther on this Mac. I need it for work. That side bar in the Finder, Open, and Save dialogues is going to save alot of time.
The thing is, the iMacs are regarded as new machines, whereas the Beige ones as old. And indeed, there is a reason, the Beige models look older, and they have an OldWorld ROM. [Edit: fixed spelling]
Originally posted by ryaxnb
It's really late '99, not '01.
That would be Mac OS 9.
Mac OS X Public Beta was mid-2000. Mac OS X 10.0 was released on March 24, 2001.
i have slot load imac dv 400 with 640 ram 10.2.6 no problems my only problem is that i can't get mail to work with adelphia.net cable broadband so i just use the webmail
Originally posted by Chucker
That would be Mac OS 9.
Mac OS X Public Beta was mid-2000. Mac OS X 10.0 was released on March 24, 2001.
Back when all this was happening (when did Apple buy NeXT, 1997?) there was a considerable amount of indecision among those buying new machines about whether they'd run the new OS. Originally it was supposed to be all PCI models (and in fact those do run with XPostFacto) but they decided to make the cut off with the Beige models. They started selling them as "ready for OS X". This is the main reason why they just lost that lawsuit for not providing DVD support or graphics drivers for those models.
Like I said, there's nothing inherent in these machines that would make them incapable of running Panther - it's not that different from Jag - and an upgraded Beige machine can be quite a bit more capable than models that are still supported).
Originally posted by ryaxnb
Ahem... I suppose everybody has $1300 to spare
if you're a student, buy the 1 ghz g4 emac with a 512 mb chip from apple for $990, then get another 512 mb for another $100, for a total of $1090. i just saved you $200, and no additional cost of monitor. if you're still struggling with a beige non-upgraded g3, you'll even be happy with the 800 MHz g4 and all that ram for an additional $100 off.
then retire the beige g3 back to os 9 to act as a simple file server and internet router and such on a basic ethernet network. if it's not running much, it'll be as screamin' fast and rock-solid as you remember when you first unpacked it.
Originally posted by rok
if you're a student, buy the 1 ghz g4 emac with a 512 mb chip from apple for $990, then get another 512 mb for another $100, for a total of $1090. i just saved you $200, and no additional cost of monitor. if you're still struggling with a beige non-upgraded g3, you'll even be happy with the 800 MHz g4 and all that ram for an additional $100 off.
then retire the beige g3 back to os 9 to act as a simple file server and internet router and such on a basic ethernet network. if it's not running much, it'll be as screamin' fast and rock-solid as you remember when you first unpacked it.
I was mentioning one of the average prices (mid-iBook, high-eMac, low-iMac/PowerMac.)
iBook 800 640MB: 52 points
my Upgraded G3 beige: 45 points
With the Quarz PCI Hack my personal experience is that they are equal.
In my opinion panther would give g3 beige users another year before buying new hardware. And that's the point.
Schlaefer
Originally posted by ryaxnb
I was mentioning one of the average prices (mid-iBook, high-eMac, low-iMac/PowerMac.)
my point is there are deals to be had, and costs to be saved, but it does require the consumer to comparison shop at least a little bit and to assess their own computing needs first. sure, apple does set their market price for shipping models, but you can often get bundles from other retailers that make it a significantly better value, too. you mention the average prices, but i guarantee if someone has been getting by this long with a beige g3 and shoehorning os x onto it, then their needs for power are outweighed by their need to run os x. making broad generalizations based on averages without taking specific needs into account is a sure-fire way to end up paying too much. and too many people will just blindly go "i must buy the full retail price from the apple store in order to upgrade," which perpetuates many myths about the higher costs of macs vs. pc's.
Originally posted by rok
my point is there are deals to be had, and costs to be saved, but it does require the consumer to comparison shop at least a little bit and to assess their own computing needs first. sure, apple does set their market price for shipping models, but you can often get bundles from other retailers that make it a significantly better value, too. you mention the average prices, but i guarantee if someone has been getting by this long with a beige g3 and shoehorning os x onto it, then their needs for power are outweighed by their need to run os x. making broad generalizations based on averages without taking specific needs into account is a sure-fire way to end up paying too much. and too many people will just blindly go "i must buy the full retail price from the apple store in order to upgrade," which perpetuates many myths about the higher costs of macs vs. pc's.
You're right on just about every point.
Originally posted by ryaxnb
You're right on just about every point.
Yep, except for this bit:
i guarantee if someone has been getting by this long with a beige g3 and shoehorning os x onto it, then their needs for power are outweighed by their need to run os x.
The "slowness" of OS X isn't absolute across all determining factors. Yes, the interface is slower - but that can be said for any machine that will boot OS 9. One of the big changes for Panther is that *the interface drawing is faster*. That means that older, slower machines will benefit the most - the faster the processor you're using, the more it masks inefficient code.
And OS X isn't "shoehorned" into a Beige G3 - this is (on 10.2) a supported configuration. On a well maintained system it will run decently, on an upgraded one (more RAM, decent HD, faster processor) it will run well - better than a number of the systems that are still going to be supported in 10.3.
The main problem I have with dropping support for machines that were previously supported is that Apple has the habit of introducing new APIs in every major iteration of the OS. If developers want to use those new functions (and believe me they will, just ask people who try to use 10.1.x systems to run new applications) they can either require users to upgrade or they have to maintain a separate code branch that tries to replicate the same behavior for both systems. Worse, some will just decide to use their custom code across both branches and this is how you end up with stuff like the lack of long filename support in some Carbon ports.
Anyway I think this is a stupid move on Apple's part. They can drop full-on "support" for those machines but it should allow for an unsupported install for the newly abandoned machines and that would stop the bitching and still let them accomplish the same thing.
Apple wants to get rid of OldWorld Macs. They are a bad memory from the era of worthless proprietory Macs. Not only that, Apple spends time maintaining the headache that is OldWorld support. NO non Classic OS was or intended to be run on those Macs. It's so easy for Apple to just say "f*** it, take the code out".
Barto
Originally posted by ryaxnb
Didn't the PoweBook G3 Series ('Wallstreet') have an OldWorld ROM too?
Yes they do.
Another problem that will occur for people who will use XFacto to get Panther on there Beige G3, is - I for example have a Rev A with no slave drive support unless I boot into Mac OS X (which I run 100% of the time, and have been doing so for 3 years). Mac OS X patches the Rev A ROMS to support Slave Drives. I now have a 80GB and a 120GB drives in my Beige G3 MT Rev A.
Since Apple has taken out the software ROM patch to allow slave drives on Rev A beige G3, Xfacto most likely won't fix that so people with slave drives will loose there second HD.
Originally posted by Aquatic
People running OS X on old computers should just get new computers. You'll be so much happier. Quartz Extreme is a biggy, the G4 is also. The new iApps need them and new tech like Airport Extreme and Bluetooth need new comps too. Buck it up make the jump!
-If you can-
However Panther runs great when "tweaked":
My -only- test system for Panther is a G3/350. I figure that if it runs great on that system, then it will be a viable system for many users.
What you can do to bring your G3 close to G4 speeds:
0. Run Xbench. Save the results.
1. Get a radeon of somesort, I believe an ATi Rage128(16MB) will work, but that's not a pretty graphics card, but will "work." Get a Radeon if you can. The Mac Radeon (original) is even a much better card than the stock ATi Rage 128.
2. Run PCI Extreme!. Change settings to support Quartz Extreme over the PCI bus.
3. Run Xbench again. Save the results and compare with speeds from before.
4. You could also do an optimize to speed things up if they become slow.
hope this helps.
-walloo.
Originally posted by Mac Write
Yes they do.
Another problem that will occur for people who will use XFacto to get Panther on there Beige G3, is - I for example have a Rev A with no slave drive support unless I boot into Mac OS X (which I run 100% of the time, and have been doing so for 3 years). Mac OS X patches the Rev A ROMS to support Slave Drives. I now have a 80GB and a 120GB drives in my Beige G3 MT Rev A.
Since Apple has taken out the software ROM patch to allow slave drives on Rev A beige G3, Xfacto most likely won't fix that so people with slave drives will loose there second HD.
Unless, of course, you upgrade your rev A Beige G3 with a rev B ROM chip. My rev A beige G3 266 AV is an ultra beast.... too many mods to mention, including a custom Newer Tech CPU upgrade. My Ti forced this box to just collect dust. My new G5 (whenever it comes) will send it somewhere else.
Originally posted by JLL
As long as your G3 have built in USB it will work.
Builds 3X-49 tried so far
It runs just fine on my iBook Clam 366 (192 megs), I use it to aquire and print thousands of images at a time, and to sort and arrange over 500 folders of photos, some folders with over 5,000 items in them, the people that say it is slow are completly CLUELESS.
Safari load, 4 sec
Folder with 4,000 images, ALL OPTIONS ON, icons to 128, previews on, info on, etc. 14 s
Mail 4 sec
iPhoto 2 load 7 seconds
Import of 20 1 meg images via USB (memory stick), 48 secs