Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Enthusiast Zone > Classic Macs and Mac OS > 128MB Needed for Mac OS X

128MB Needed for Mac OS X
Thread Tools
Alex00087
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: SiliconValley, No. Cali.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 3, 2001, 01:37 AM
 
GoTo:
http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPL....3.1.1.0?53,59

Look at the bottom it says that you need 128MB! I thought that you needed 128MB just for the Public Beta. Wern't they supposed to change it to 64MB for the final release?
     
CaseCom
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: St. Paul, MN
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 3, 2001, 01:57 AM
 
Yeah, news of this has been out there since Macworld a few weeks ago. They were trying for 64, and OS X itself requires 64, but they're saying that Classic needs 128.
     
Phaedrus
Guest
Status:
Reply With Quote
Feb 3, 2001, 02:41 AM
 
Well the new low end powermac ships with 128MB RAM, so it seems pretty obvious that OS X users will need 128MB RAM.

The cool part is that RAM is so cheap now...I think Apple could not have picked a better time to up the OS RAM requirements.

X probably runs fine with 64MB , but if you want classic to work I'm guessing at 128MB min., probably runs faster with at least 192MB.

     
twistedface
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Aug 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 3, 2001, 05:58 AM
 
I personally believe that its a case of inefficient coding on Apple's part and too much razzle dazzle stuff in OS X. I have recently acquired a Compaq Presarion with an AMD K6-2 300Mhz with 48MB RAM and have actually installed Win2k on it and it runs smoothly. If MS can build such a stable advanced (although still Windows) OS and make it run at 48 MB then Apple should also be able to do the same. I thought OS X is supposed to have advanced Virtual Memory, then why do we need so much Physical RAM to run the OS?
I won't even start on the G3 being the minimum.....
     
MikeM32
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: "Joisey" Home of the "Guido" and chicks with "Big Hair"
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 3, 2001, 02:41 PM
 
I've got 352 MB on my Beige G3/266 Desktop, so I guess I'm "safe". I'm more curious about how "classic" applications "use" memory. I've taken down Classic in the Public Beta on purpose just to see what would happen

I openned-up Photoshop, QuarkXPress, Suitcase, and then tried to open Illustrator and WHAMMO!!! Not that I regularly do this anyway, but I wanted to see what would happen It was cool that while Classic "died" and took down it's "ship and crewmembers" OSX PB was humming along as-if nothing had even happenned

My guess is the Classic applications still run off the RAM allocated to them under OS 9.X. Under OS 9.0.4 I've got Photoshop 5.0.2 running at 100 MB, Quark 4.11 at 50 MB, Suitcase 3 (which does still work under OS 9.X) at it's default of 1.5 MB, and Illustrator at 70 MB. Total of all = 221.5 MB. That should have left me with 130.5 MB (a little more then what OSX and Classic supposedly "require").

I'm assuming from the above "test" that Classic applications still run off allocated RAM (correct me if I'm wrong here). If I'm right, then I'm wondering if there's going to be some means of "adjusting" the memory allocation to Classic applications from within the Classic environment, or if I'll have to "back-off" on my allocated RAM to my app's by booting back into OS 9.X and making adjustments as-needed.

Mike
     
Gregory
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Sep 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 3, 2001, 04:54 PM
 
Marketing - but the page on www.mosr.com suggests they are making headway on RAM and speed. Still, can you really install or run 9.0.4 w/ 32MB of RAM and VM set to 40? Would you want to? for what purpose?

Will it run better with 320MB ? You bet! And, the faster the disk drive, the better, there is a lot of I/O overhead, multiple swap files, VM always on.

Even with only $220 and two ram slots you could install 512MB RAM if they fit, and that's Crucial RAM, which I trust. I know the PB ran better when I pulled the CAS3 and added another 256MB.

Running a lot of applications will put some strain on RAM and disk drives.
     
ugh
Guest
Status:
Reply With Quote
Feb 3, 2001, 05:35 PM
 
re twistedface

win2k on 48 megs of RAM. who do you think you're kidding. MS own [faulty] RAM requirements for win2k are 64 megs, and anyone who installs win2k recommends 128megs for fun and 256megs for serious work. if you just want to stare at the GUI and listen to the HD churn all day 48megs is fine. And the K6-300 is also a little short of MHZ--try a 500 Piii.

Though if you're used to running it on VPC I'm sure everything runs better and slightly faster.

go troll somewhere else
     
twistedface
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Aug 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 3, 2001, 06:22 PM
 
Re: Re: - Twisted Face

Not to blow up your little bubble buddy, but I recently went on the Microsoft Win 2000 training programme and was told in not so many words that even though the course material says Win 2k pro needs 64 MB RAM and a PIII, it will happily run on a Pentium 166 with 32 MB RAM - Advanced Server is a different fish altogether. Besides I am typing this on my Presario with 48 MB RAM and running Win 2k....
Don't speak unless you have tried it!
     
ugh
Guest
Status:
Reply With Quote
Feb 3, 2001, 06:38 PM
 
I don't want to get into a pissing match, but I HAVE tried it. I have a lab of 30+ machines running autocad, office 2000, 3D studio max, photoshop and illustrator. win2k service pack 1, and we have upgraded from128 to 256 megs to make the machines more 'useful.' The slowest machines are 233mhz and we request that students use them for surfing and word processing only, unless they have the time to wait. Win2K's GUI eats processor cycles, and feels very sluggish on anything less than a 500mhz PIII. I don't like waiting for the GUI to react and I really don't give a sh+t what MS says, 64 megs don't work. Apple also says the OS9 will run on 64megs, but they are full of sh+t too.

YMMV
     
Kaglan
Forum Regular
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: A University in Rochester NY, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 3, 2001, 07:01 PM
 
Whoa! Calm down. First, the days of having the entire mac os fit in 200 k of ram have long been over. Second, remember mac os X is two OS's, not one. If you were content to never run any classic apps, I am sure you would be happy with 64 MB or less. One of Apple's own salesmen told me that [mac os x] "works fine" with 64. (This was a university rep, and though he wasn't giving me an official statement, he was speaking from experience). But running classic means you need everything for os x PLUS everything for classic.

I also suspect that Apple is setting the minimum at a "tolerable useage" level rather than a actual floor, so that thousands of people don't complain about how slow classic is.


... I do miss system 6.0.2's RAM requirements and its stability. The first family computer was a Mac SE... and the only time it ever crashed was if you opened the chooser while running Microsoft Works. (Which I found humorous). And being able to boot from a 800 k floppy was useful.
     
ugh
Guest
Status:
Reply With Quote
Feb 3, 2001, 07:36 PM
 
I feel that RAM and speed requirements set by OS [read Apple/MS] are not to be believed [thats a kind way of saying lies]. Even the assumption that a person is using "just" doing e-mail, web browser and word processing nowadays means memory-intensive, processor intensive app use. I think Apple 128megs for OSX IS finally reasonable, though 256megs for OSX+Classic is more realistic. Classic VM assumes 1+ gigs of memory is available, and disk churning is not pretty.
     
PerfectlyNormalBeast
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Medford, MA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 3, 2001, 07:41 PM
 
For god's sake! Can't you people just shell out $50 bucks for a name-brand stick of 128 megs? It's not like a couple of megabytes really matters. Yes apple should be able to code a little better, but they've done a decent job considering what OS X does. My pet peeve is the $130 retail price for an OS that's at least 5 years late. Apple should include a stick of 64 megs in every box for that price.

And about the Win2k issue. Win2k does run just fine on a slower machine with 64 megs if you turn off the services and features you don't use. However, there is a noticeable difference in general use when you add more memory. When you're running Photoshop and other huge apps the difference becomes much larger. As for the display engine wasting cycles, I don't find that to be true.

I also think that the memory hog that is the current incarnation of Classic may not be on most of our computers for long. I'm expecting a big backlash against developers who fail to carbonize their apps. Once users get a feel for native OS X apps, especially Cocoa ones, they will have a lowered tolerance for legacy software. I expect enough carbon apps by 2002 for most users to never run Classic. Apple has made the path clear enough for developers to enable that to happen.

I'm currently porting some distributed server software from Win2k to OS X. Now that's a pain in the ...

     
Scott Gerenser
Guest
Status:
Reply With Quote
Feb 3, 2001, 07:44 PM
 
I think the people that are getting all upset here need to calm down a bit. Have you actually PRICED a 64 MB PC100 SDRAM chip lately? I mean, we're talking less than thirty bucks! Heck, you can add a 256 to your system and be way over the requirements for under $100 shipped. Why the big fuss?
     
Dalgo
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Storrs,Connecticut, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 3, 2001, 08:35 PM
 
Hey, hey! Now before you go on saying how Apple is bad because unlike M$ Windows 2000 OS X requires 128Megs of RAM, look at where that is going. I have used the Beta on computers with only 64 megs of RAM. It worked. Now what would suddenly make it require 128 you ask? One work: Classic. Classic was totally unusable with 64 megs of RAM. Now, unlike anything under Windows 2000, having classic open under OS X is pretty much the same as having one operating system running under another. You'd expect that the memory requirements would then add. So, OS 9 works well under 64 megs of RAM, OS X without classic works well with 64 megs of RAM put them together and you need 128 megs of RAM. You can't really compare X to windows 2000 because windows isn't running two operating systems in one.
     
Dalgo
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Storrs,Connecticut, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 3, 2001, 08:37 PM
 
Double post. Omnigroup: please fix whatever causes these double posts when I hit the back button!

[This message has been edited by Dalgo (edited 02-03-2001).]
     
deco
Guest
Status:
Reply With Quote
Feb 3, 2001, 09:09 PM
 
Just for the record, I have been running the OS X beta on 64 MByte and it runs fine. However, with classic running as well the system slows down. I recently put another 256 MBytes into the system, and sure enough the classic environment runs very smoothly and fast. My guess is that Apple had to make 128 MB a minimum because 9.1 will be running along side it.
Now I also use the Windows OS, and can't imagine running NT and 2000 side by side in 64 MBoh, that's right, I can't do that. :-)

deco
     
cutterjohn
Forum Regular
Join Date: Feb 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 3, 2001, 09:38 PM
 
win2k: don't feel bad, feels sluggish on 1GHz Athlon Thunderbird/Abit KT-7RAID/ GeForce 2 system that I built as a comparison to my G4/500 mini-tower... (i.e. I was greatly disappointed with the performance of the system, feels not much faster than my Celeron-500 that I upgraded from, and slower than the G4...sound is better though (Soundblaster Live!))

It does seem to be relatively lax on memory usage for an MS product thought, task manager reports 78M in normal operation for me... I seriously doubt the smooth operation on a K62-300/48M though...
     
Cipher13
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 3, 2001, 09:45 PM
 
Re. anyone that has said "oh just go and buy some more RAM!": Get lost. Its not that cheap. Actually, it is ridiculously expensive here, so its not that damn simple. Not to mention it should be a non issue.

I just find it disgusting that Apple shipped computers with a base RAM of 64 megs (even the pro models!) for so long. Absolutely disgusting. And the fact that they STILL ship consumer ones with 64 megs.
Typical Apple behaviour if I ever saw it. Disgusting.

Cipher13
     
bojangles
Senior User
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Lafayette, IN, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 3, 2001, 09:52 PM
 
I just upgraded my Rev. A Platinum G3 to 640M RAM (my old 128M plus two 256M PC-133s for $83.50 each, shipped!) and thought I'd brag a little. I also bought Mac OS X today, for the student beta tester price of only $39!

"Aunque el mono se viste de seda, mono se queda."
“The trouble with quotes on the Internet is that you can never tell if they’re attributed to the right person.”
—Abraham Lincoln
     
jack daddy
Forum Regular
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: New York, NY USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 3, 2001, 10:03 PM
 
hey guys i want to inform you that it's goddam crazy for a os to use that much memory. i have both a mac and pc and win 98 barely uses any memory. i have turned off most of the extras microsoft made me start with, but according to norton utilities, upon start up 94% of my 256 ram is free.
     
helloLenny
Guest
Status:
Reply With Quote
Feb 3, 2001, 10:26 PM
 
Ok, have any of you ever used a UNIX variant?

ever?

comparing Win2k to X is NOT possible.

For those of you who are totally new to the idea of (GASP) a command line, start classic and then run top on the command line. See how much virtual Ram it takes? the reason that they SUGGEST 128 Mb of ram is so that you wont swap as much on the disk. Classic is a hog at swap space. Why do you think that classic apps run so fast?
Did you honestly think that it was written to work that well?

Now, for those of you who think that 128 mb of ram is too much for any OS, wake up. Moore's law is smoking you. X can run without classic under 96 Mb of ram quite nicely. Ask any UNIX admin, UNIX does not need alot of ram, but it helps. It keeps CPU cycles down because it doesn't have to swap as much.

So there...run top and look at how much of your physical ram is actually being used.
You'll be surprised.
Dave
     
Jsnuff1
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: NY
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 3, 2001, 10:43 PM
 
come on guys wiht all the graphics that the aqua interface has im suprised it didnt go over 128, i mean windowz is a blue screen with grey boxes and it needs 128, i think thats pretty good work on apples side.
     
Sho
Guest
Status:
Reply With Quote
Feb 3, 2001, 10:57 PM
 
48M is not enough memory for any kind of usable performance under win2k .. it's ridiculous to suggest otherwise! The base OS has a consumtion of 160M or thereabout .. any apps have to go on top of that .. my 256M PC is constantly running out of headroom and hitting the disks. Well, I guess I just can't be bothered upgrading it, no matter how cheap, I don't want to spend another damn dollar on the POS ..

Even OS9 I would recommend a minumum of 128 and preferably more. With prices the way they are, it simply makes no sense to cripple your expensive computer by not having RAM .. like someone said, come on guys. It's Moore's Law. You want new features and capabilities? You're gonna need a faster CPU .. and more RAM. Personally, there is no *way* I am gonna run OSX on anything under 512 .. omg !!! that's $200 worth of memory! I must be crazy!
     
Aubre
Guest
Status:
Reply With Quote
Feb 3, 2001, 11:09 PM
 
Just drop $100 on 256MB. It's really that cheap. I'm glad Apple offers uselessly small amounts of RAM as an option, as they'd charge 2-3x the price of other vendors for more. Sigh, if only you could buy a Mac with a hard drive, CD/R/DVD, keyboard, mouse... in short, only the useful/unique pieces.
     
Cipher13
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 3, 2001, 11:36 PM
 
Originally posted by Jsnuff1:
come on guys wiht all the graphics that the aqua interface has im suprised it didnt go over 128, i mean windowz is a blue screen with grey boxes and it needs 128, i think thats pretty good work on apples side.
Dude, that is one lame argument. pretty colours and effects should NOT come before RAM usage and stuff.
Apple screwed up with that. I better be able to use Platinum... with no effects...

Cipher13
     
Reality
Guest
Status:
Reply With Quote
Feb 3, 2001, 11:53 PM
 
Originally posted by jack daddy:
win 98 barely uses any memory. i have turned off most of the extras microsoft made me start with, but according to norton utilities, upon start up 94% of my 256 ram is free.
6% of 256MB < 16MB

Are you trying to imply that Win 98 can run on 16MB of RAM?

     
Jsnuff1
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: NY
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 4, 2001, 12:20 AM
 
Originally posted by Cipher13:
Dude, that is one lame argument. pretty colours and effects should NOT come before RAM usage and stuff.
Apple screwed up with that. I better be able to use Platinum... with no effects...

Cipher13
i aggree with you, but what im saying is that they actually crammed all those graphics in and manged ot keep ram requrments blow 128, if not lower, because as you guys said the 128 is for both aqua and classic running
     
Mel Rose
Guest
Status:
Reply With Quote
Feb 4, 2001, 12:27 AM
 
Originally posted by Cipher13:
Dude, that is one lame argument. pretty colours and effects should NOT come before RAM usage and stuff.
Apple screwed up with that. I better be able to use Platinum... with no effects...

Cipher13
Heh... Have fun with OS 9.1 then. May as well stop discussing OS X, since you apparently won't be using it...

LOL... Platium with no effects...LOL

Yes, Aqua is just an "option". You can also run every version of the finder from OS 1 on up, and as a bonus Apple's throwing in a Windows 2000 skin!

LOL... Platinum in OS X... Oh, my sides... Lol...

By the way, do you REALLY think the choice of colors makes a huge difference in RAM usage? I mean, sure a small one, but you could paint the current Mac OS finder with a pretty broad palette and still have the same RAM requirements. Green in the close box, red in the "maximize" box, yellow in the windowshade box, etc. I'd be pretty willing to bet that OS X takes up LESS RAM and processor time than OS 9.

Platium in OS X... tee hee
     
Leonis
Senior User
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 4, 2001, 01:29 AM
 
Originally posted by MikeM32:
I've got 352 MB on my Beige G3/266 Desktop, so I guess I'm "safe". I'm more curious about how "classic" applications "use" memory. I've taken down Classic in the Public Beta on purpose just to see what would happen

I openned-up Photoshop, QuarkXPress, Suitcase, and then tried to open Illustrator and WHAMMO!!! Not that I regularly do this anyway, but I wanted to see what would happen It was cool that while Classic "died" and took down it's "ship and crewmembers" OSX PB was humming along as-if nothing had even happenned

My guess is the Classic applications still run off the RAM allocated to them under OS 9.X. Under OS 9.0.4 I've got Photoshop 5.0.2 running at 100 MB, Quark 4.11 at 50 MB, Suitcase 3 (which does still work under OS 9.X) at it's default of 1.5 MB, and Illustrator at 70 MB. Total of all = 221.5 MB. That should have left me with 130.5 MB (a little more then what OSX and Classic supposedly "require").

I'm assuming from the above "test" that Classic applications still run off allocated RAM (correct me if I'm wrong here). If I'm right, then I'm wondering if there's going to be some means of "adjusting" the memory allocation to Classic applications from within the Classic environment, or if I'll have to "back-off" on my allocated RAM to my app's by booting back into OS 9.X and making adjustments as-needed.

Mike
No. Actually classic DOES adjust its memory usage automatically.

When I am running OSX PB I launched simple text with 600MB RAM allocated (yes, 600MB for simple text ! ) and Photoshop (800MB RAM allocated) and Cinema 4D XL (400MB allocated).

You can NOT allocate any classic app's memory higher than what you have. I have 1024MB of RAM therefore I can't allocate app memory higher than that. Otherwise the app won't launch.

I checked out the memory usage. Guess how much RAM is used.

When I am not doing anyway and just left them at the background. Only using 11% of overall RAM!

When I open a huge file (100MB) in Photoshop, the memory usage from classic jumped to somewhere like 80%. When I close it the memory dumped back to 11%.....


------------------
My comic web site

I don't use spell checker.

[This message has been edited by Leonis (edited 02-04-2001).]
MacPro 2.66, 5GB RAM, 250GB + 160GB HDs, 23" Cinema Display
MacBook Pro 1.83GHz, 2GB RAM (from work)
MacBook (White) 1.83GHz, 2GB RAM
     
rtamesis
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Jan 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 4, 2001, 01:57 AM
 
How are you able to run Cinema 4DXL in OSXPB??? Maxon says it is incompatible with it, and I verified it myself by having C4DXL quit everytime I try to launch it under OS X PB.
     
Apple_John
Forum Regular
Join Date: Sep 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 4, 2001, 02:16 AM
 
Well, I do think OS 9 use too much memory. 'About This computer' says I am using 48mb.

Yes, memory is very cheap nowaday. But, programs are getting less efficient and eat up too much disk space, it forces user to buy new hardwares. Few days ago, I was in a IBM store. I heard a senior told a saleman he need his first computer for e-mailling and read newspaper on the web. He end up buying a $3000 computer (PIII 1G).

BTW, my old P200mmx is running W2K, Win 3.11, Win 98se with 64mb. Under W2k, it is very stable and faster than Win 98 and VPC 3(ibook 366). 486DX4 100 w/ 12mb running dos and win 95, I still use it now for C and Pascal, it can play MP3 as well!

Beside DV editing, 3d game and Photoshop. Consider the computer-power in the space station, why do we really need so many ram just for OS?
     
mkbhatia
Administrator
Join Date: Dec 1998
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 4, 2001, 02:18 AM
 
Wednesday, Jan 31st news at osx.macnn.com.


Maxon released a public beta version of its software.

[This message has been edited by mkbhatia (edited 02-04-2001).]
     
NoWinDoze!
Guest
Status:
Reply With Quote
Feb 4, 2001, 02:27 AM
 
Originally posted by twistedface:
I personally believe that its a case of inefficient coding on Apple's part and too much razzle dazzle stuff in OS X. I have recently acquired a Compaq Presarion with an AMD K6-2 300Mhz with 48MB RAM and have actually installed Win2k on it and it runs smoothly. If MS can build such a stable advanced (although still Windows) OS and make it run at 48 MB then Apple should also be able to do the same. I thought OS X is supposed to have advanced Virtual Memory, then why do we need so much Physical RAM to run the OS?
I won't even start on the G3 being the minimum.....
This is complete BULLSH*T !!! I personally installed Win2k on a Dell system with 80 MB of physical RAM. I configured it to where only EXPLORER.EXE and SYSTRAY.EXE were the only processes running. And talk about S-L-O-W !!! Win2k needs AT LEAST 128 MB to be usable. My hard drive was accessing for virtual memory just to let me navigate the START menu! No way is Win2k usable with anything lower than 92 MB.

     
Cipher13
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 4, 2001, 03:06 AM
 
Originally posted by Mel Rose:
Heh... Have fun with OS 9.1 then. May as well stop discussing OS X, since you apparently won't be using it...

LOL... Platium with no effects...LOL

Yes, Aqua is just an "option". You can also run every version of the finder from OS 1 on up, and as a bonus Apple's throwing in a Windows 2000 skin!

LOL... Platinum in OS X... Oh, my sides... Lol...

By the way, do you REALLY think the choice of colors makes a huge difference in RAM usage? I mean, sure a small one, but you could paint the current Mac OS finder with a pretty broad palette and still have the same RAM requirements. Green in the close box, red in the "maximize" box, yellow in the windowshade box, etc. I'd be pretty willing to bet that OS X takes up LESS RAM and processor time than OS 9.

Platium in OS X... tee hee
I didn't say the COLOURS made a huge diff in memory and processor time, but the useless effects do, when compared to what a Platinum equivalent based on Quartz would.
And no, I probably won't be using it. Yes, I want Platinum in OSX. You find it funny... simply because opinions differ.
I want speed and good navigation. You obviously want something will make you want to "lick the screen". Try po... err, icecream instead.
I want functionality. You want something thats "pretty". I bet you'd rather drive a Celica than an XR8 huh?
Oh well... to each their own.
I'm sure it does use less cycles/RAM. But I'm not talking about OS9 - I'm talking about a Quartz-based Platinum, versus Aqua.

Cipher13
     
criedel
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Madsion, WI den USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 4, 2001, 08:54 AM
 
I ran OSX PB on my iBook with only 64 megs. Running classic was a joke, but OSX ran reasonably well.
Rennt um Euer Leben!
     
Mel Rose
Guest
Status:
Reply With Quote
Feb 4, 2001, 09:32 AM
 
Originally posted by Cipher13:
I didn't say the COLOURS made a huge diff in memory and processor time, but the useless effects do, when compared to what a Platinum equivalent based on Quartz would.
And no, I probably won't be using it. Yes, I want Platinum in OSX. You find it funny... simply because opinions differ.
I want speed and good navigation. You obviously want something will make you want to "lick the screen". Try po... err, icecream instead.
I want functionality. You want something thats "pretty". I bet you'd rather drive a Celica than an XR8 huh?
Oh well... to each their own.
I'm sure it does use less cycles/RAM. But I'm not talking about OS9 - I'm talking about a Quartz-based Platinum, versus Aqua.

Cipher13
I just find the earlier post "I BETTER be able to use Platium... with no effects" funny. As if Apple's going to be scrambling to get that put in after reading your post or something. Apple's not THAT desperate for market share, sorry to say.

I'm not really too worked up over the how the OS looks. It's different, sure, but I think that's kind of the point. The effects don't bother me if they don't waste much in the way of CPU cycles. I mean, so an icon bounces in the dock when it launches? So what if the "genie" effect sucks things into the dock instead of it just appearing there. It certainly makes it easier to see where it went in the dock. I don't think the effects are just there for eye candy. I can see a purpose to just about everything Apples done to make the OS user-friendly and powerful. So what you are calling effects is, in many ways, what Apple (and many others) are calling user-friendliness. And while enjoying the functionality of OS 9, be sure to enjoy such wonderful OS 9 "functionality features" as the Type 1, 2, or 11 error. Or how about the need to force-quit a locked-up application. Or perhaps the always user friendly "locked up so hard that the only way to restart the computer is to pull the plug from the iMac." Ah yes... OS 9. See, if you ask me, you're the one who's more worried about the appearance than the functionality.

Anyway, I'm betting you'lll be whistling a different tune within 6 months, when the Apps you run are oh-so-much zippier under OS X.

And by the way, I drive a Honda. Nice looking, and gets me where I'm going... just like both Mac OS 9 and OS X. But I'm betting OS X won't need a tune up until 100,000 miles.
     
Leonis
Senior User
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 4, 2001, 12:49 PM
 
Originally posted by rtamesis:
How are you able to run Cinema 4DXL in OSXPB??? Maxon says it is incompatible with it, and I verified it myself by having C4DXL quit everytime I try to launch it under OS X PB.
Yes your right. C4D is totally unusable under PB. I just launched it to see how OSX manages the memory allocation for Classic.....
MacPro 2.66, 5GB RAM, 250GB + 160GB HDs, 23" Cinema Display
MacBook Pro 1.83GHz, 2GB RAM (from work)
MacBook (White) 1.83GHz, 2GB RAM
     
iBookmaster
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Tappahannock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 4, 2001, 02:16 PM
 
I think the 128 meg minimum is to be able to run classic with Mac OS X. If it did not have to run classic, I believe the ram requirements would be half that. I have no problem buying more ram...I have more than what ships with all my Macs. Kinda makes me wonder why Apple still ships computers with 64 megs knowing Mac OS X will require 128. People who don't know that much about computers won't be able to figure that one out.
     
MikeM32
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: "Joisey" Home of the "Guido" and chicks with "Big Hair"
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 4, 2001, 03:25 PM
 
Ok, have any of you ever used a UNIX variant?
ever heard of "Xenix" (a very very very OLD Microsoft Unix variant) LOL Yep I've actually used it, I dismantled this obscure "Xenix" based system we used to use at work about a year ago. We actually did Graphics for Print jobs on these "dinosaur circa 1980 IBM systems" with 50-75 MHz Processors But they had some capabilities in running specially designed programs that could be coded rather then requiring special software. Like "Merging" a text file into a graphic template.

We had to research like crazy to find a QuarkXPress XTension that could do this, and it cost like 2 grand But it's actually better, so it's worth it, and it cut those types of jobs down from several shifts to like a half a shift to complete.

Leonis; I also read your'e reply (thanks) 600 MB to simple text HA HA

Here's what I find confusing......If Classic does manage memory, then HOW was I capable of crashing mine in the Public Beta????? Unless it's just a "beta" thing that's to be worked out by the final release.

Mike


     
Simon Kornblith
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Oberlin, OH, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 4, 2001, 09:04 PM
 
I think that the reason you may have been able to crash classic may be that it cannot use more than half of the available RAM...but that's just a theory, I have no technical backing.

------------------
Simon Kornblith
Computer Consultant
Programmer
     
   
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:21 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,