Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

ChasingApple · Jun 1, 2005, 03:17 PM

Hey all, thought I would drop a post about my experiences with Tiger on an older iBook Clamshell. I have the SE model which is the most top of the line clamshell available, it has a 466Mhz G3, has 320MB of memory, and a whopping 40GB HD installed. Apple's website says it should run Tiger fine and to be honest it did run it, but there were problems....

Quicktime 7 - This app just sucked on the clamshell, none of the new effects actually displayed on the screen (8MB of video memory not enough), and was painfully slow at resizing the screen, also any .MOV file over 480x360 was choppy as all hell when played full screen, forcing you to watch it in a tiny window for full speed playback.

Spotlight - While this app actually worked pretty well on the book I have a feeling it was also causing the system to run slower then it should, every time you make a change to any file on the HD the system would just sort of creep along, a very nice feature in the OS but something that taxed the little book a little too much.

Dashboard - This feature is just worthless on this book, 20-25MB per widget is painful to watch run, and just having dashboard constantly running without any choice is a real shame, I know it was sucking the morrow out of every other app trying to use my poor 8MB of video memory, and Dashboard wanted it all, this might explain quicktime running like a dog, or maybe QT7 just blows for speed right now but most of us run it on more modern systems and dont notice? (Note, quicktime 6.5 runs like a champ on the book)

So, after alot of frustration at having to give up on a bunch of cool new features with the latest OS, I decided to go ahead and try out OS 9, YES OS 9. I know I know, you can save the replies on that one, OS X is what makes everyone love the Macs, but I have never tried OS 9 and wanted to check it out to compare speed. I was very very impressed with what I saw, I liked the industrial and simple interface, I LOVED THE THEMES (What happened Apple???) and I loved the speed. Everything was clean and ran flawlessly. If I was not so attached to the iApps I might consider just using OS 9 on my book (I have a more modern iMac with Tiger on it) because all I use it for is simple things, videos, internet, chatting, pictures, portable DVD player, etc.

So OS 9 is blazing and running great, pretty easy to figure out and has all kinds of custom looks, hmmm, makes me kinda wish everything was not so brushed in OS X, hehe. Ok so I played with that for a few hours and made sure to test everything from inline webpage quicktime videos to high res video, browsing, airport, networking, etc etc. All ran perfectly as it should and I was happy.

Well I decided to give Panther a shot (which is what Im typing this in right now). I have been using Panther for the last year and a half on my iMac so I was very used to it and all its features, and after getting everything updated and installed I started my tests out. Funny thing is everything is running ALMOST as fast as OS 9 was, Quicktime 6.5 is very very efficient, all the iApps run great, the system feels zippy and launches things very quickly, and even minimizing things is springy and quick, unlike Tiger where everything has a delay and was sluggish.

So I guess I will run OS X 10.3 Panther on this clamshell because it just blows Tiger out of the water in useability. I know that this is pretty much a mute point now a days, but someone else out there is going to buy some older hardware and I think this post will be good for them to read.

I would like to give Apple its dues, OS 9 is nice, really nice and I wish some of the things would have carried over to OS X, themes would be nice, and some of the non graphic heavy options would have been nice. There is something to be said for a nice clean lightweight OS that runs 100% all the time. Also I would like to say good job to Apple for Panther still running great on the old clamshells, that is alot of optimizing on an OS for it to run this well on older tech. I guess that is why I love Apple Computers, I get my moneys worth

OptimusG4 · Jun 1, 2005, 03:26 PM

Don't forget Tiger requires at least 256MB RAM where Panther only required 128MB, so that may play into the factor as well.

Big Mac · Jun 1, 2005, 03:30 PM

Thank you for the review of Tiger on your iBook - I also own an iBook 466. I do have to disagree with your points on OS 9. The classic Mac OS was a great consumer OS for its time, but OS X is a professional, industrial strength OS; comparisons between the two aren't exactly fair. OS 9 was a lighter weight, much simpler OS than OS X, so it felt faster on the same hardware. But you have to realize OS 9 lacks a world of modern OS features (like protected memory, preemptive multitasking, actual memory management) and a world of functionality. You may have been impressed with your first few minutes of OS 9, but its limitation get bothersome really quickly. I also know my iBook could never run "high resolution" QuickTime - in OS 9 or OS X.

ChasingApple · Jun 1, 2005, 04:27 PM

Originally Posted by Big Mac

Thank you for the review of Tiger on your iBook - I also own an iBook 466. I do have to disagree with your points on OS 9. The classic Mac OS was a great consumer OS for its time, but OS X is a professional, industrial strength OS; comparisons between the two aren't exactly fair. OS 9 was a lighter weight, much simpler OS than OS X, so it felt faster on the same hardware. But you have to realize OS 9 lacks a world of modern OS features (like protected memory, preemptive multitasking, actual memory management) and a world of functionality. You may have been impressed with your first few minutes of OS 9, but its limitation get bothersome really quickly. I also know my iBook could never run "high resolution" QuickTime - in OS 9 or OS X.

Good points, but while OS 9 does not have alot of these new features, actual use showed me with multiple apps running it was faster. As far as memory management goes I did not notice myself running out of memory at all, but then again I am not a power user on this book, that is what the iMac is for

I can run high res quicktimes in OS 9 and OS X panther, but not in Tiger, I even tried a 640x480 file and it ran great. As for H.264 or any of that HD stuff forget it on here, lol. Luckily most everything on the net is 480 and below, except for the ultra high trailers at quicktime.com, and those ran good as well. I think I am going to blame this one on QT7.

As for the world of functionality goes I am not quite sure what you mean there. I bought this book almost a month ago with 1 very simple purpose, so sit on my couch and surf the net while chatting with my friends. The only apps I run are Safari, Mail, iChat, iPhoto, Quicktime, and DVD Player. For those types of apps OS 9 or OS X Panther would work fine. If I am going to be doing encoding or higher CPU stress type things I will run them on the iMac of course

Honestly though if someone were to find a good deal on an older clamshell and it was loaded up with OS 9 they would be fine. Yes OS X would give them a little more and the iApps really are worth it themselves, I would go no further then Panther

Cheers.

Thinine · Jun 1, 2005, 04:34 PM

As far as I can tell, QT 7.0.1 fixed some of the performance problems in QT on my iBook 500. And, you can keep the old QT Player around if you want too.

Randman · Jun 1, 2005, 04:36 PM

Safari, Mail, iChat, iPhoto aren't in OS 9.

alphasubzero949 · Jun 1, 2005, 05:14 PM

Just installed Tiger on my iBook G3 (600 MHz). It's a little slower on startup (not the 4 s seen on my Al PB G4) but is still quite responsive (in some ways better than Panther). Then again, this is with 640 MB of RAM.

On my gf's iBook G4, Tiger was dog slow (256 MB RAM), making the machine feel more like a G3. I'd hate to see what Tiger would do on a blueberry if it's that slow on the SE.

ChasingApple · Jun 1, 2005, 05:17 PM

Originally Posted by Randman

Safari, Mail, iChat, iPhoto aren't in OS 9.

Yes I realize that, so swap those out for IE / Netscape, Outlook / Netscape Mail / AOL IM, and DiMage Photo. I do believe I said those "TYPES" of apps.

ChasingApple · Jun 1, 2005, 05:18 PM

Originally Posted by alphasubzero949

Just installed Tiger on my iBook G3 (600 MHz). It's a little slower on startup (not the 4 s seen on my Al PB G4) but is still quite responsive (in some ways better than Panther). Then again, this is with 640 MB of RAM.

On my gf's iBook G4, Tiger was dog slow (256 MB RAM), making the machine feel more like a G3. I'd hate to see what Tiger would do on a blueberry if it's that slow on the SE.

Tiger only supports iBooks with Firewire, the Indigo, Lime, or Graphite models

alphasubzero949 · Jun 1, 2005, 05:27 PM

Originally Posted by ChasingApple

Tiger only supports iBooks with Firewire, the Indigo, Lime, or Graphite models

I don't think that the firewire requirement is the only reason.

ChasingApple · Jun 1, 2005, 08:06 PM

Originally Posted by alphasubzero949

I don't think that the firewire requirement is the only reason.

Of course it isn't

ApeInTheShell · Jun 2, 2005, 05:31 PM

When I bought my iMac in '99 it came with Mac OS 8.6 which was stable and Mac OS 9.1 made it all the more better. Before that I was using a Power Mac running Mac OS 7.5. I played games like Sim City 2000 and Afterlife. I also used Adobe Photoshop for my drawings and Codewarrior for Java. The iBook 300mhz we owned ran similar applications but Mac OS 9.2. I did not have a problem with the operating system because it worked like promised. Except it wasn't a part of the future like Mac OS X would be. I remember the first previews of the Finder and Dock. Minimizing windows and the phrase 'preemptive multitasking'. I had no idea what any of these things meant but the interface and features sold me on Mac OS X. The difference let me explore the system via the command line. I used pico to write stories and by the time Mac OS X 10.2 was released I installed X-Windows and Fink. I would have never known about this software if I hadn't used Mac OS X. Java was still slow but at least I could use the developer tools if I needed them.
I have used every major release of Mac OS X since its introduction and it gets better each time. My iMac meets the minimum requirements but it does not slow to a crawl. I was surprised the iMac DV was not dropped after Panther.
I am currently using my g/f's iBook G4 and everything works great. I notice the beachball sometimes but I am assuming it is because of the standard RAM installed: 256mb. Dashboard does not delay like it does on the iMac and spotlight is quick. I might not get a laptop because it's uncomfortable but going back to Mac OS X Panther or Mac OS 9 is not an option for me. If you have to downgrade stick with Panther because it was a solid operating system and supports iLife '05 and many other important applications.

ChasingApple · Jun 3, 2005, 02:21 AM

I am still using Panther on it and I will probably stay with it. Only bummer is gaming, all the games meant to run on this hardware are OS 8-9 only, and I do not have classic up and running on Panther.

Oh well, great OS and great Book

pliny · Jun 3, 2005, 07:50 AM

Originally Posted by ChasingApple

Good points, but while OS 9 does not have alot of these new features, actual use showed me with multiple apps running it was faster.

You can have a bunch of apps open at the same time on OS 9, but not all running and doing stuff. Watch out for the pretty little restart bomb--that was always a good time.

ChasingApple · Jun 3, 2005, 02:18 PM

Ok, I got Classic to run, just copied my System Folder over from my iMac and the OS 9 Apps folder as well, all is well. Nice to have the modern OS X but still run the older OS 9 apps. Panther will remain on here for good. I love my clamshell

ChasingApple · Jun 5, 2005, 06:52 AM

Ok I have been reading that on alot of peoples G3 based systems that Tiger is indeed faster for them, but all of them are running 512MB and above on their systems. I am now starting to wonder if the slowness in Tiger vs Panther is indeed my 320MB of ram. Soon I will be upgrading to 576MB of ram maxing this little guy out and I will report back my findings.

Perhaps there is hope! hehe.

osxrules · Jun 5, 2005, 04:12 PM

I'm glad I got a Mac Mini before upgrading to Tiger. But even with a gig of Ram, some of the fancy effects are too much. I think that the QT7 scaling is a bit daft really especially when it's not really a functional item. I can't believe how much more productive I am with most of the fancy effects off. I noticed that in GraphicConverter recently with the zoom effects. I wondered why it took ages to close a whole bunch of open images. Turning off zoom effects makes them all close instantly and I mean instantly. I now use scale on the dock instead of genie and I've turned off zoom rectangles in the Finder using Tinkertool.

I don't mind Apple providing these fancy features to have a really nice interface but as someone said, having an off switch in the interests of performance would help so many people out. Oh and themes wouldn't go amiss either. Sure there are 3rd party add-ons but they're buggy and slow. They should at least allow people to implement the lightweight unix window managers like blackbox etc. without X11.

alphasubzero949 · Jun 6, 2005, 03:18 AM

Originally Posted by osxrules

I'm glad I got a Mac Mini before upgrading to Tiger. But even with a gig of Ram, some of the fancy effects are too much. I think that the QT7 scaling is a bit daft really especially when it's not really a functional item. I can't believe how much more productive I am with most of the fancy effects off. I noticed that in GraphicConverter recently with the zoom effects. I wondered why it took ages to close a whole bunch of open images. Turning off zoom effects makes them all close instantly and I mean instantly. I now use scale on the dock instead of genie and I've turned off zoom rectangles in the Finder using Tinkertool.

I don't mind Apple providing these fancy features to have a really nice interface but as someone said, having an off switch in the interests of performance would help so many people out. Oh and themes wouldn't go amiss either. Sure there are 3rd party add-ons but they're buggy and slow. They should at least allow people to implement the lightweight unix window managers like blackbox etc. without X11.

Are you kidding me? I have a 1 GHz G4 with 1 G of RAM and no performance hits from the eye candy in Tiger.

Methinks it's time to clean your system of caches or other junk (did you do a straight upgrade or Archive/clean install?).

osxrules · Jun 10, 2005, 08:43 PM

Are you kidding me? I have a 1 GHz G4 with 1 G of RAM and no performance hits from the eye candy in Tiger.

Methinks it's time to clean your system of caches or other junk (did you do a straight upgrade or Archive/clean install?).

I think the eye candy probably depends more on the graphics card now I think about it - I shouldn't have mentioned Ram. With the puny Radeon 9200 with 32MB VRam in my Mac mini, it might be struggling. Mostly it's ok but the Radeon 9200 isn't powerful enough to render the droplet effect in Dashboard for example. It also depends on certain other things. The QT 7 zoom thing seems to work ok on DVDs and standard media but a lot of XVid and DivX stuff is not so smooth. Glad they did something about the play head snapping to the edit marker in pro though - that is so much more useful. Now if they had a way to type in the exact times rather than rely on dragging.

I still think I need to do something like maybe with caches though. I'm getting a weird problem where the help in Tiger takes forever to load a page. I click a link and it will take more than 15 seconds to load. It doesn't do it all the time though.