Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

mismith · Nov 15, 2001, 07:10 PM

I wanted to get some other readers' opinions regarding OS 10.1 on a Ti400.

I have stock everything, 10gig HD, 128 MB Ram...

When 10.0 came out in March, I seemed to get pretty good results, at least compared to others. While with the 10.1 update, I do see a significant increase in speed, I don't have the same enthusiasm as some people.

As I was a bit frustrated with 10.0.x, I abandoned os X for a while, and was very happy with 9.1 and then 9.2. I just installed 10.1 for the first time and everything feels pretty sluggish. Except for iTunes that is... iTunes 2 would skip A LOT is 9.2, and almost never skips in 10.1. The beta version of Office v.X I have been running is extremely slow loading and running (one of the most recent builds, not from a ghetto warez server, mind you), and even typing seems to lag a little.

While I know the G4 400 processor is very slow compared to some of the new configurations, I was wondering if TiBook users are getting better performance with more RAM or other configurations.

Thanks
Mike S

Ryu · Nov 15, 2001, 07:17 PM

Originally posted by mismith:
<STRONG>I wanted to get some other readers' opinions regarding OS 10.1 on a Ti400.

I have stock everything, 10gig HD, 128 MB Ram...

When 10.0 came out in March, I seemed to get pretty good results, at least compared to others. While with the 10.1 update, I do see a significant increase in speed, I don't have the same enthusiasm as some people.

As I was a bit frustrated with 10.0.x, I abandoned os X for a while, and was very happy with 9.1 and then 9.2. I just installed 10.1 for the first time and everything feels pretty sluggish. Except for iTunes that is... iTunes 2 would skip A LOT is 9.2, and almost never skips in 10.1. The beta version of Office v.X I have been running is extremely slow loading and running (one of the most recent builds, not from a ghetto warez server, mind you), and even typing seems to lag a little.

While I know the G4 400 processor is very slow compared to some of the new configurations, I was wondering if TiBook users are getting better performance with more RAM or other configurations.

Thanks
Mike S</STRONG>

May be this is not really a good comparison but once I had an iBook 500, I started off with 128MB. Then I added a 256 barrette. The improvement was significant. Then when I installed OSX.1, I could you it quite comfortably. Me, who felt kind of adventurous, decided to pull out the 256MB to see what that would do... Sluggish... it was almost impossible to use.

Conclusion: You need one good 256 or 512 and you will never boot again on OS9.

absmiths · Nov 15, 2001, 07:25 PM

I use X exclusively on my 667 with 512MB, and it is a ray of sunshine compared to my G3/300...

TiG4 · Nov 15, 2001, 07:35 PM

I have a G4 400 w/256MB RAM and when I first installed OS X back in March, I was quite annoyed with the relatively poor performance.
With OS X.1 though, everything was definitely much quicker.

Perhaps a suggestion would be to turn off Classic, unless it is required.
I personally feel that is slowing the system down.

Another recommendation : more RAM.

Oink · Nov 17, 2001, 10:36 AM

Stock Ti400 with 386mb of RAM, running OSX 10.1 for 2 weeks now. Speed seems okay, More RAM will definitely help. More impressed this time round than when 10 just came out. Dual booting is necessary for speed. I have OSX installed on a different partition, so I can reinstall at will, twice so far. Problem with X is the lack of programs I need to run; Photoshop, AFX, Acrobat, Outlook etc, running classic as a task is not an option. But the ability to use a terminal, and to test cgi/php etc without having to upload to server is a definitely plus. Aqua is annoying at best. Will look into other window manager soon.

Phat Bastard · Nov 17, 2001, 04:12 PM

It's clear everyone is more impressed with 10.1 over 10.0.4, but no one has talked about what I think is the main issue:

Should someone use 10.1 (even IF it is faster than 10.0.4) over the faster, more efficient 9.2?

To me, 10.1 is still too slow to use daily. I have a Ti400 with 384 MB RAM, and 10.1 on a separate partition from 9.2. I still use 9.2 since everything responds quicker, applications load faster, and menus and things like that respond instanteously. 10.1 just doesn't cut it for me yet...hopefully the next update will speed it up some more.

I'm not sure how much performance increase would occur if I purchased even more RAM...I thought 384 MB would be enough but I guess it isn't.

iTrey · Nov 17, 2001, 04:29 PM

get more ram. i just have 256 extra (384 total), and it's very nice. the only thing i want now is high res iTunes, at a higher frame rate, heh.

pmoc · Nov 17, 2001, 05:16 PM

I have benn using my Ti 400 for 6 months now under 10.0.4 with 384 Mo then 10.1 with 640 Mo. In this later configuration, the PB is running very well indeed. I reboot it every time I have to for os upgrades. Appart from that, no system bugs, no glitches, it works like a charm.

Cheers. Philippe.

Oink · Nov 17, 2001, 07:25 PM

To Phat Bastard,

The point is: are the programs you need to run available/stable on OSX. Eventually you will have no choice but to switch. The way I see it, I don't want to be an absolute beginner when I do, may be 1 yesr down the track.

About the speed of new OS, it is pathetic that newer OS has to be slower than the one it replaces, OS 6 is faster than OS 7 anyday, which in turns is faster than OS 8, which is faster than OS 9... But eventually you will need a feature that is available in a program that will only run in the newer OS.

Good luck. Meanwhile dual boot.

WizOSX · Nov 17, 2001, 10:35 PM

Oink--
I dont see why it is "pathetic" that new Os's run slower. It's like saying that if I put more passengers in my car and turn on the air conditioning the car won't be as peppy--of course it won't. Os improvements slow down the OS. If you look at Windows, Microsoft keeps moving up the recommended minimum processor needed with each new version of Windows. And, BTW, WinXP doesn't run at all on many 2 year old notebooks!

Oink · Nov 17, 2001, 11:22 PM

To WizOSX,

I am sure you are also content with ads in your browser, spam in your mailbox, because they also make your internet experience more complex tan necessary! Colour movies are also better movies than black and white ones because of the extra hue. To tag on to your analogy, Apple is now insisting you carry your extra passengers whether you like it or not.

I know OS X is running on a Unix core and I also know that the OS is wasting CPU cycles drawing aqua stripes and transparency when it doesn't have to. Gratuitious complexity without usability consideration is tacky at best. I am a user, not a hype chaser.

Oh, I don't use Windows, I am not insecure as to have to compare MacOS to Windows. One should look up, not down.

[ 11-17-2001: Message edited by: Oink ]