Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

rogerkylin · Jul 19, 2002, 07:54 AM

I know Apple has the posted list of supported machines, but what, realistically is the oldest system 10.2 should be run on.

I have a Rev A ibook (300 MHz g3) 288Mb RAM, and whatever the standard graphics card is.

I know I will not get any benefit from Quartz Extreme, but is the 10.2 upgrade worth doing on an old ibook? Or are there too many new bells and whistles that will just make X seem even slower on such an old machine. Keep in mind at this point I do not do cpu-intensive work on my ibook, so I don't need 'perfect' performance.

edddeduck · Jul 19, 2002, 07:59 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by rogerkylin:
I know Apple has the posted list of supported machines, but what, realistically is the oldest system 10.2 should be run on.

I have a Rev A ibook (300 MHz g3) 288Mb RAM, and whatever the standard graphics card is.

I know I will not get any benefit from Quartz Extreme, but is the 10.2 upgrade worth doing on an old ibook? Or are there too many new bells and whistles that will just make X seem even slower on such an old machine. Keep in mind at this point I do not do cpu-intensive work on my ibook, so I don't need 'perfect' performance.<hr /></blockquote>OS X 10.2 is the fastest out of all the OS X versions.

So if you now run X it will be better and faster with 10.2

If you don't use processor intensive apps you should be OK my old iMac 266 is running 10.1 and for stuff like Word Excel etc it's fine.

Memory is the real thing all versions of OS X like memory 256MB is a more realistic minimum.

Cheers Edwin

mitchell_pgh · Jul 19, 2002, 10:58 AM

For the record, you do get some advanced features from QE...

<a href="http://www.apple.com/macosx/jaguar/quartzextreme.html" target="_blank">Quartz Ext. Info</a>

"Jaguar delivers across-the-board optimizations to Quartz that make your system more responsive, no matter the hardware. You will detect a small improvement if you have a G3 processor."

lookmark · Jul 19, 2002, 11:09 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by rogerkylin:
I know Apple has the posted list of supported machines, but what, realistically is the oldest system 10.2 should be run on.

I have a Rev A ibook (300 MHz g3) 288Mb RAM, and whatever the standard graphics card is.

I know I will not get any benefit from Quartz Extreme, but is the 10.2 upgrade worth doing on an old ibook? Or are there too many new bells and whistles that will just make X seem even slower on such an old machine. Keep in mind at this point I do not do cpu-intensive work on my ibook, so I don't need 'perfect' performance.<hr /></blockquote>For browsing, E-mail, writing, iTunes, iMovie, and so forth you should be just fine.

Some things are still going to be a bit slow, but the OS X experience, along with all the X-only goodies, will be well worth it.

OTOH, if you plan on using professional-level apps like Photoshop, InDesign, or FCP, or do graphics work for any length of time, you may be frustrated with OS X on that machine.

[ 07-19-2002, 11:12 AM: Message edited by: lookmark ]

OreoCookie · Jul 19, 2002, 11:31 AM

Required:
-> 256 MB of RAM
-> 400 MHz G3
-> 5 GB HD

Recommended:
-> 384 MB of RAM
-> 500 MHz G3 or 450 MHz G4
-> 10 Gigs of RAM

Optimum:
-> 512 MB+ of RAM (the more the better)
-> 800 MHz+ G4
-> QE-supported graphics card (e. g. nVidia GeForce 4 Ti)

lookmark · Jul 19, 2002, 11:48 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by OreoCookie:
[QB]Required:
-> 256 MB of RAM
-> 400 MHz G3
-> 5 GB HD<hr /></blockquote>About right, but I don't agree with your Mhz for "Required".

300Mhz G3 should be fine for casual/consumer-level type stuff, especially with Jaguar. One may have to allow for some occasional stickiness.

Northform · Jul 19, 2002, 11:56 AM

10.2 won't require anything more than 10.1. On machines that aren't supported by QE you will get a boost in responsiveness that is a tiny bit under double. Apple uped the RAM asking for 10.2, but that was just to reflect what people thought earlier versions needed. Even if you don't want any of the features that 10.2 introduces I would get it for the speed.

rjenkinson · Jul 19, 2002, 11:58 AM

<img src="http://www.zuv.uni-heidelberg.de/sw/gefahrstoffe/symbole/geb-ver/no-way.jpg" alt=" - " />

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by OreoCookie:

Recommended:
-> 384 MB of RAM
-> 500 MHz G3 or 450 MHz G4
-> 10 Gigs of RAM
<hr /></blockquote>that's a heck of a lot of memory...

-r.

MacAttack · Jul 19, 2002, 01:03 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by mitchell_pgh:
For the record, you do get some advanced features from QE...

<a href="http://www.apple.com/macosx/jaguar/quartzextreme.html" target="_blank">Quartz Ext. Info</a>

"Jaguar delivers across-the-board optimizations to Quartz that make your system more responsive, no matter the hardware. You will detect a small improvement if you have a G3 processor."<hr /></blockquote>Pet peeve of mine on these forums...the improvements you'll see on your iBook are a result of general optimizations to regular "Quartz," NOT "Quartz Extreme," so you will not get any advanced features from QE.

But I do recommend you take a look at the Quartz Extreme page at Apple...there's a chart at the bottom which shows the speed of various graphics operations in 10.1, 10.2, and QE. Looks like the non-QE improvements in 10.2 are rather significant as well.

Bottom line...10.2 should run significantly "snappier" than 10.1 on any Mac, regardless of model. Good news all around.

[ 07-19-2002, 01:12 PM: Message edited by: MacAttack ]

normyzo · Jul 19, 2002, 01:11 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by rjenkinson:
 <img src="http://www.zuv.uni-heidelberg.de/sw/gefahrstoffe/symbole/geb-ver/no-way.jpg" alt=" - " />

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by OreoCookie:

Recommended:
-> 384 MB of RAM
-> 500 MHz G3 or 450 MHz G4
-> 10 Gigs of RAM
<hr /></blockquote>that's a heck of a lot of memory...

-r.<hr /></blockquote>That's not really a lot of RAM. These days, 256MB should be the minimum on any computer. Hell, a 256MB stick of PC100 at Crucial.com costs $55, and Crucial is arguably the best for quality, and you pay a bit extra for it. 384MB is not unreasonable, its just the higher end of reasonable. I'd say *requiring* 512MB for anything right now would be UNreasonable, but not 384.

Dan

lookmark · Jul 19, 2002, 01:14 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by normyzo:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by rjenkinson:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by OreoCookie:

Recommended:
-> 384 MB of RAM
-> 500 MHz G3 or 450 MHz G4
-> 10 Gigs of RAM
<hr /></blockquote>that's a heck of a lot of memory...

-r.<hr /></blockquote>That's not really a lot of RAM. These days, 256MB should be the minimum on any computer. Hell, a 256MB stick of PC100 at Crucial.com costs $55, and Crucial is arguably the best for quality, and you pay a bit extra for it. 384MB is not unreasonable, its just the higher end of reasonable. I'd say *requiring* 512MB for anything right now would be UNreasonable, but not 384.[/qb]<hr /></blockquote>He was just tweaking the "10 Gigs of RAM" requirement.

Which is really a lot of RAM.

I mean, heck, everyone knows you need at least 3 gigs of RAM to run OS X, but 10 gigs...? That's just not true.

[ 07-19-2002, 01:16 PM: Message edited by: lookmark ]

MacAttack · Jul 19, 2002, 01:17 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Origi> <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by rjenkinson:
 <img src="http://www.zuv.uni-heidelberg.de/sw/gefahrstoffe/symbole/geb-ver/no-way.jpg" alt=" - " />

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by OreoCookie:

Recommended:
-> 384 MB of RAM
-> 500 MHz G3 or 450 MHz G4
-> 10 Gigs of RAM
<hr /></blockquote>that's a heck of a lot of memory...

-r.<hr /></blockquote>That's not really a lot of RAM. These days, 256MB should be the minimum on any computer. Hell, a 256MB stick of PC100 at Crucial.com costs $55, and Crucial is arguably the best for quality, and you pay a bit extra for it. 384MB is not unreasonable, its just the higher end of reasonable. I'd say *requiring* 512MB for anything right now would be UNreasonable, but not 384.

Dan<hr /></blockquote>I think rjenkinson was referring to OreoCookie's statement of "10 Gigs of RAM" as being a heck of a lot of memory...of course OC meant to say 10 Gigs of HD space, which most of us understood and which rjenkinson was poking fun at.

Just thought I'd explain it for the humor-impaired amongst us. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />

[ 07-19-2002, 01:20 PM: Message edited by: MacAttack ]

captain swing · Jul 19, 2002, 01:20 PM

leaving RAM to one side, i have the original tower g3/233: is it worth it to install OS X, or is it simple not really workable?

swing

[APi]TheMan · Jul 19, 2002, 01:44 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by captain swing:
leaving RAM to one side, i have the original tower g3/233: is it worth it to install OS X, or is it simple not really workable?

swing<hr /></blockquote>Install it and see

captain swing · Jul 19, 2002, 03:10 PM

thanks TheMan

i was hoping that others might know the answer and save me the time ... if the answer is don't bother.

swing

parsec · Jul 19, 2002, 03:31 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by captain swing:
leaving RAM to one side, i have the original tower g3/233: is it worth it to install OS X, or is it simple not really workable?

swing<hr /></blockquote>I've got a beige g3 233 as well, and 10.1.5 is tolerable for me (with 320 megs of RAM).

Honestly, I think you do need to try it to see if it suits you or not. I mostly just like the unix functionality, gcc etc. (I'm a CS student) and the stability does seem better (though I never really ran OS 9 much; I went from 8.6 to X) and the multitasking is also quite nice.

I certainly wouldn't recommend running it with anything less than 256M of RAM though.. not that I've tried, but I can imagine it being painfully slow (some would probably describe my current setup as painfully slow).

One thing that sucks is some higher quality movies don't play very well (e.g. vcd's, divx)

On the whole I'm pleased, but of course your mileage may vary.

On a somewhat related note, does anyone have any advice on X-compatible upgrade cards for a beige g3? I've been considering picking one up.

captain swing · Jul 19, 2002, 08:06 PM

many thanks parsec

i have been using X on my g4/400 (448 ram) since the early betas .. and even jaguar. and from what you say i think i might give it a go on my old G3!

thanks
swing

captain swing · Jul 19, 2002, 08:06 PM

thanks TheMan

i was hoping that others might know the answer and save me the time ... if the answer is don't bother.

swing

drjoe · Jul 19, 2002, 10:56 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by parsec:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by captain swing:
leaving RAM to one side, i have the original tower g3/233: is it worth it to install OS X, or is it simple not really workable?

swing<hr /></blockquote>I've got a beige g3 233 as well, and 10.1.5 is tolerable for me (with 320 megs of RAM).
On a somewhat related note, does anyone have any advice on X-compatible upgrade cards for a beige g3? I've been considering picking one up.<hr /></blockquote>I have a Rev A DT beige [originally 233Mz] running now with an XLR8 500G4 and 768 Meg ram. OS 10.1.5, ATI 7000 with a replacement combo drive from LT. I can honestly say the with this setup OSX runs very well, not just OK but very well. I also have the CompUSA cheapo USB/FW PCI card [$20!!!] and there are very few things that I cannot do on my machine that I would need a new Mac for. The machine is a dream. Plays DVD's, outputs them to a 26" Sony Console TV, lets me edit analog audio, burns, etc.