[galarneau]

I've been looking at getting a cheap iMac for my parents who only need to be able to check email, surf the web, instant message, etc. They currently use an old PC that my uncle put together, and I'm getting tired of having to do tech support on it for them.

The older 333Mhz tray load iMacs are going very cheaply on eBay (<$100), whereas the slot loads are going for much more.

Has anyone used Panther on both and can comment on how well it runs?

My public library has some 333Mhz iMacs with Panther, but they only have 128MB of RAM, and don't run very well.

Thanks

[rjenkinson]

the 333 Mhz model is obviously slower, lacks firewire, has only a 66 Mhz bus (vs. 100 Mhz), less VRAM, smaller hard drive, and a CD-ROM drive (vs. DVD-ROM drive). it also maxes out at 512 MB of RAM, while the 400 Mhz model can take 1 GB. you can get the specs here:

• http://www.apple-history.com/frames/...model=imacrevd
• http://www.apple-history.com/frames/...y&model=imacdv

given that the prices on ebay are fairly close and the better specs, there's no real reason not to get the 400 Mhz model.

-r.

[galarneau]

Originally posted by rjenkinson:
the 333 Mhz model is obviously slower, lacks firewire, has only a 66 Mhz bus (vs. 100 Mhz), less VRAM, smaller hard drive, and a CD-ROM drive (vs. DVD-ROM drive). it also maxes out at 512 MB of RAM, while the 400 Mhz model can take 1 GB. you can get the specs here:

• http://www.apple-history.com/frames/...model=imacrevd
• http://www.apple-history.com/frames/...y&model=imacdv

-r.

Thanks for the information, however, I was already familiar with the hardware specifications.

I'm looking for responses from people who have actually used Panther on either of these machines, and can comment on usability for the purposes I stated.

[P]

I have used Panther on both, and I have to say... get the slot-loader. The (crippled) Rage128 in the slot-loader is fully supported, while the Rage Pro in the older machine is only sort of supported. Quartz takes a toll on the graphics board even without Quartz Extreme. It may not be mcuh faster, but it will feel faster.

[deboerjo]

I'm running Panther on a 333. It's quite usable, and it's better than a biege G3, but it's still slow. Contrary to what I've read, the onboard Rage Pro video is just fine for Quicktime movies, even big ones, but don't try running the OpenGL screen savers, if you set a screen saver just have it put the screen to sleep. Most of OS X's screensavers are 3d and require a Rage 128 and run much better on a slot-loader. I've used a 400MHz slot-loader before, it's also somewhat slow, there isn't a huge difference, but it's still a preceptible improvement. The only really big difference is when you try doing 3d graphics in OpenGL (OpenGL screen savers or 3d games), there the slot-loader's Rage128 is a big advantage.

A few things to keep in mind:

Do NOT get a 350MHz slot loader. Aside from no firewire, they also have no video out, so if the built-in monitor dies, you're screwed. With the tray loaders or the 400+MHz slot loaders, there's a video out port on the back.

No firewire on the tray-loaders is particularly troublesome when you consider that USB is too slow to add a CD burner or DVD-ROM.

The tray-loaders are more upgradable than the slot loaders; the slot loaders you're pretty much stuck with what you've got processor-wise. With the tray loaders, Sonnet's Harmoni card allows upgrades to 600MHz and also adds firewire.

Tray-loaders are much easier to separate from the iMac's restrictive chassis; my tray-loader is actually just the motherboard tray sitting on my desk, connected to a rewired power supply, a 17" monitor, two hard drives, and a 52x CD burner. The tray-loaders are easier to wire power for, and have two IDE controllers for up to 4 IDE drives.

-Jon

[deboerjo]

Originally posted by P:
The (crippled) Rage128 in the slot-loader is fully supported, while the Rage Pro in the older machine is only sort of supported.

I've read a lot about the Rage II/Rage Pro being unsupported by OS X, but I have to say, if it's true, it sure isn't noticable. All the resolutions are supported (connected to a 17" monitor mine is doing 1152x768, and it's doing 1600x1200 in the photo in my previous post). 2d acceleration is apparently fully supported, since movie playback is smooth and moving/resizing windows isn't terribly slower. Does the "not supported" refer only to 3d graphics? That's more a lack of 3d horsepower (you don't want to see OpenGL on a Rage Pro) than the chip being "unsupported". Or is it some feature or video capability that I've just never run across or tried to do with my iMac?

[kcmac]

I have a 400 DVSE and my mom has the 333. One big issue is memory. You can put more in the 400. (I got a 1 gig kit.)

While this addition is very noticeable, the 400 is just plain better with Panther and this was definitely true with Jaguar. (Panther created some speed gains which were nice.)

I would also get the 400 because of firewire. You will no doubt be assisting them every once in awhile. A firewire connection is awesome when you want to hook up both machines (possibly) for the firewire target disk mode. You also may have an external firewire hard drive for backup that you could use on the 400 as well vs. getting a slower USB one.

I would caution you on the 400 and the early models with a brand of hard drive that failed regularly. Can't remember the brand but I had it and it failed.

Get a 400 minimum. I'd almost sell you mine 'cause I am getting the new iMac. But it works too well to give up.

Good luck.

[macaddict0001]

Originally posted by rjenkinson:
the 333 Mhz model is obviously slower, lacks firewire, has only a 66 Mhz bus (vs. 100 Mhz), less VRAM, smaller hard drive, and a CD-ROM drive (vs. DVD-ROM drive). it also maxes out at 512 MB of RAM, while the 400 Mhz model can take 1 GB. you can get the specs here:

• http://www.apple-history.com/frames/...model=imacrevd
• http://www.apple-history.com/frames/...y&model=imacdv

given that the prices on ebay are fairly close and the better specs, there's no real reason not to get the 400 Mhz model.

-r.

Your spec's are wrong and so are the spec's on the site.site

[kcmac]

The only thing I notice on those specs is that you really can put a 1 gig kit in the 400 DVSE. This came out later. I have one. I also put a 40 gig 7200 hard drive in mine when the original failed.

[rjenkinson]

Originally posted by macaddict0001:
Your spec's are wrong and so are the spec's on the site.site

uh, no. what you posted was the spec page for a different imac DV model. the apple history website lists that model on this page:

http://www.apple-history.com/frames/...y&model=dv2000


-r.

[macaddict0001]

I thought that was the one you were talking about. Sorry.

[galarneau]

I want to thank everybody who was able to offer their experiences using these two iMacs under Panther.

I'm going to cough up the extra $$$ and get a slot load for my folks.

Thanks again everyone.