Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Footy · Aug 11, 2002, 11:16 PM

Hello,

I've already made my mind up to trash OS9 on my wifes iBook 366 and install OSX Jag. Can I expect things to be as fast on it? I'm guessing Jag will be slower than OS9 but can anyone tell me what to expect? I realize I won't be able to run QE.

I've read the threads that say Jag is acceptable for the slowness of the G3 366 but how does it compare to 9.

She's a teacher and uses Apple Works, Internet Explorer for report cards to the schools server, and email. Not all at the same time. She'll also be using IE for her Masters program too.

I think she'll like OSX better than 9 in the long run. She'll be a little mad at first till she get comfortable. She has tooled around on my G4 with OSX so she won't be totally lost.

gunnar · Aug 11, 2002, 11:20 PM

Overall, it will feel a little slower maybe, but the productivity gains through the new architecture and lack of crashes will put Jag heads and tails above 9. For her tasks it will be quite pleasing.

Footy · Aug 11, 2002, 11:24 PM

Thanks for the fast responce gunnar! That's good news. I can hardly wait for Jag to come out. I feel like I'm 8 years old and Christmas it coming.

uochris · Aug 11, 2002, 11:24 PM

No doubt about it, even with 10.2 it will be slower than OS 9. The nice thing is that unless you actually do "trash" OS 9 for some reason you can always go back and use that as your startup OS instead. On my 400mhz G3 powerbook 10.2 is useable but not spectacular. I'm a bit of a geek though and I honestly don't think the average user would have much to complain about. If you have the native software then 10.2 is the way to go.

Footy · Aug 11, 2002, 11:32 PM

Originally posted by uochris:
I'm a bit of a geek though and I honestly don't think the average user would have much to complain about. If you have the native software then 10.2 is the way to go.

She won't notice it being a bit slower I don't think. It kills me to do anything on her iBook since I'm use to my G4 867, but I really don't think she pay attention to that sort of thing.

Thanks!

Fallout · Aug 12, 2002, 04:03 AM

I've been running 10.2 for about a week now, and it's only slower than 9 in window resizing and drawing large menus. Apps take a bit longer to open. But it's all good, because the other features of 10.2 far outweigh it's slowness. I can't stand to use 9 now.

Colonel Panic · Aug 12, 2002, 10:23 AM

i tried it on an original ibook (300, rage mobility). slower than 9.2 for sure: of course resizing and perhaps she'll notice slower scrolling as well (although AW6, without "live scroll" will be fine. ) menus and stuff'll be fine. does the 366 have a rage 128 card in it? i don't recall if that machine had that card. also, she'll need to get used to thousands of colors on an LCD, which is a bit of a bummer since it decreases the raw good looks of aqua.

SMacTech · Aug 12, 2002, 10:32 AM

Originally posted by Colonel Panic:
she'll need to get used to thousands of colors on an LCD, which is a bit of a bummer since it decreases the raw good looks of aqua.

I cannot see any difference in aqua when using millions of colors as compared to thousands. Are you implying that the aqua interface uses that high of a bit depth? If so, where?

calamar1 · Aug 12, 2002, 10:41 AM

This might depend on which 366 you mean.

i have a Graphite 366 SE (in other words, the rev. b original iBook), and 10.1 runs decently, but nothing spectacular (and only recently has had any kind of support for the Rage LT pro graphics). The later 366 ones (indigo/graphite/lime) had better graphics and firewire and other fun stuff, and might be better. All in all, it's quite usable, and the most important benefit of X is the instant wake-from-sleep. i've been using X for nearly 2 years now, and can't imagine waiting for the 'puter to wake up anymore.

noliv · Aug 12, 2002, 11:49 AM

The Amount of RAM you have is very important Footy.
More than 128 is needed.

Footy · Aug 12, 2002, 04:18 PM

Originally posted by noliv:
The Amount of RAM you have is very important Footy.
More than 128 is needed.

I got all I can in there now since upgrading the memory last week to 320MB. It' the original iBook SE 366 graphite without firewire.

Colonel Panic · Aug 12, 2002, 04:42 PM

Originally posted by SMacTech:

I cannot see any difference in aqua when using millions of colors as compared to thousands. Are you implying that the aqua interface uses that high of a bit depth? If so, where?

absolutely - look at the tranparency in drop-down menus in "thousands". VERY grainy. smooth as glass in "millions". same with dock transparency. nothing dramatic but something i can easily notice on LCDs (but not, to be honest, CRTs)

NDBounce · Aug 12, 2002, 06:11 PM

Originally posted by gunnar:
Overall, it will feel a little slower maybe, but the productivity gains through the new architecture and lack of crashes will put Jag heads and tails above 9. For her tasks it will be quite pleasing.

I disagree. 9 is leaps and bounds ahead of X when it comes to speed and overall productivity for the average person (email, web browsing, mp3,s etc). It's not like 9 crashes every hour. In general it doesn't crash too often.

I also noted that I have to force quit apps in X a lot more than I have to in 9. Granted I don't have to reboot everytime an app crashes, but I definitely have to restart my browser a couple of times a day, because they give me the eternal spinning beachball.

Also, for some reason I get better browser speed in 9 than X. They tend to load and render webpages a lot quicker than OS X's browsers.

So I think for the average home user, 9 is a faster system.

Period.

Peace,

O
B unce!

MacBliss · Aug 12, 2002, 09:37 PM

Originally posted by NDBounce:

I disagree. 9 is leaps and bounds ahead of X when it comes to speed and overall productivity for the average person (email, web browsing, mp3,s etc). It's not like 9 crashes every hour. In general it doesn't crash too often.

I also noted that I have to force quit apps in X a lot more than I have to in 9. Granted I don't have to reboot everytime an app crashes, but I definitely have to restart my browser a couple of times a day, because they give me the eternal spinning beachball.

Also, for some reason I get better browser speed in 9 than X. They tend to load and render webpages a lot quicker than OS X's browsers.

So I think for the average home user, 9 is a faster system.

Period.

Peace,

O
B unce!

I wholeheartedly agree with NDBounce. OS 9.2 is very noticeably faster and snappier in day to day operations than OSX on a graphite iBook SE 366.

I did install 10.1.5 on that very machine (also with 320mb of ram) a few weeks back and I simply could not take the overall slowness of it all.Useable, but just too slow for my taste. I went back to OS 9 3 weeks later. From what I have experienced of 10.2 so far I certainly wouldn't expect any noticeable speed improvement on a non QE compatible machine.

If your wife has been using OS 9 on her iBook as long as I have on mine I garantee you that she WILL notice the slowdown and WILL give you hell for messing around with her baby without her full support and understanding of what she might expect, as she should!

So for the sake of marital harmony I would, if I were you, back up her iBook fully, and then give her a chance to try OS X.2 for a while and see if she can handle the obvious drop in responsivness of her iBook...

Of course you could just as well ignore this suggestion and try your luck and skill at the resulting hand to hand combat with your wife...

Good luck!

Footy · Aug 12, 2002, 10:11 PM

Originally posted by MacBliss:

I wholeheartedly agree with NDBounce. OS 9.2 is very noticeably faster and snappier in day to day operations than OSX on a graphite iBook SE 366.

I did install 10.1.5 on that very machine (also with 320mb of ram) a few weeks back and I simply could not take the overall slowness of it all.Useable, but just too slow for my taste. I went back to OS 9 3 weeks later. From what I have experienced of 10.2 so far I certainly wouldn't expect any noticeable speed improvement on a non QE compatible machine.

If your wife has been using OS 9 on her iBook as long as I have on mine I garantee you that she WILL notice the slowdown and WILL give you hell for messing around with her baby without her full support and understanding of what she might expect, as she should!

So for the sake of marital harmony I would, if I were you, back up her iBook fully, and then give her a chance to try OS X.2 for a while and see if she can handle the obvious drop in responsivness of her iBook...

Of course you could just as well ignore this suggestion and try your luck and skill at the resulting hand to hand combat with your wife...

Good luck!

I will of course back up her documents, she would kill me for deleteing them for sure.

Notice a slowdown, I doubt it even if Jag is a bit slower. I think I know her pretty well.

(subject to change)

Hand to hand combat - I have a 100 pounds on her.

If it doesn't work out I'll set her up with 9 again.

Thanks for the advise.

MacBliss · Aug 13, 2002, 01:47 AM

Originally posted by Footy:

I will of course back up her documents, she would kill me for deleteing them for sure.

Notice a slowdown, I doubt it even if Jag is a bit slower. I think I know her pretty well. (subject to change)

Hand to hand combat - I have a 100 pounds on her.

If it doesn't work out I'll set her up with 9 again.

Thanks for the advise.

Don't forget to backup her bookmarks folder, and more importantly, all of her email folders. These are often overlooked in back-ups...

Footy · Aug 13, 2002, 10:36 PM

Originally posted by MacBliss:

Don't forget to backup her bookmarks folder, and more importantly, all of her email folders. These are often overlooked in back-ups...

Thanks for the reminder MacBliss!

I will of course back up email addresses and bookmarks too. I've made that mistake before.

It's wasn't pretty!