OSX on a G3
- Started
- Last post
- 20 Responses
- unknown
what's the best version of OSX for a G3 500/640 ? i am considering finally updating, maybe..
cinder says jaguar ran like shit on his G4 500, though i've also read some people said it sped up their beige machines.
so, what do you think? or should i stick with classic? 10.1? etc?
- TNDAP0
If it's a biege g3 sick with OS9, if it Aqua blue and white run OSX I'm on one now.
- CyBrainX0
I had Jaguar running on my blue G3 450 for a little while. It took 2 weeks to get it finally running. Then it was marginally ok for a while and then unusable. I went back to 9.2. I almost switched to PC after 10 years on nothing but Macs. I suspect the newer the machine, the better OS X runs. I have a 17" Powerbook now and haven't crashed once in the month I've had it.
I think if you have a G3, it's probably time to start shopping for a new computer.
- skape0
I'm running os x on my imac dv. It is 500mhz, but I put the ram up to 640 to be safe. So far, no problems with it.
- kpl0
10.2 is the fastest osx so far.
apple has been pretty good at optimizing osx with each major release.
- ********0
stick with Classic... then upgrade to OS XI when Apple switches to intel processors...
- kpl0
apple will never switch to intel. that would be a step backwards.
- ********0
not really, at this point a step forward. motorola is a shite ass company and the money behind IBM's G5 development is miniscule.
I've seen some rumors around that apple will soon be switching. I hope sooner than later... they can't keep up with intel or AMD there's too much money behind development over there and all the other PC chip makers.
here are some indicators:
http://www.macnn.com/news/18398
- ********0
os x works fine on a blue & white g3 450 no problem. but then of course i rock it with 576 megs o ram
- designpuppet0
i have a white and blue g3 and macosx makes my puter run slow. also, it's hard to run v9, and when i do switch back it makes it freeze all of the time... FRUSTRATING.
- TNDAP0
designpuppetdid you partition your harddrive and intall them on diff. HDs also you can use an external drive like lacie and intall osx there.
- designpuppet0
nooooo...:(
that sounds like that would have been the logical thing to do though, but i only have one drive. however, i have to burn a ton of stuff to free up space. i do have a LaCie burner.
- kpl0
you're so wrong, leg.
Look under POWER5 budget numbers, not G5. PowerPC is IBM's baby too, and it's what they use for their enterprise servers. Apple is getting scraps basically, but those scraps still blow away anything on the x86. IBM doesn't spend an inordinate amount of time on Apple's chips, but they don't need to either.
The x86 is an antiquated architecture designed for 640kb of ram and CPU's running somewhere under 10 mhz. Intel isn't making a 64-bit chip for x86 for good reason, and AMD is doing it for marketing reasons. And the x86 platform is so flawed now that the only thing really keeping it alive is market inertia. Intel is jumping ship for their 64-bit platform.
Apple already went through a major transition from OS Classic to X. architecture changes will force another set of software platform changes and no one in their right mind is cheering for that--users and manufacters--especially when the new PPC stuff is capable of running on par with the latest Intel.
Motorolla is a moot point now.
- kpl0
please don't quote dvorak, he's an imbecille.
See http://daringfireball.net/2003/0…
And Pixar has been saying nice things about the G5 lately.
- ********0
saying nice things and doing things is two different things... but I am interested in what you are saying... I didn't know about the apple getting scraps story of IBM...
But surely you don't believe that apple processors are faster at this point.. I mean, read this article:
http://www.haxial.com/spls-soapb…
what do you think?
- kpl0
What I'm saying is that the 970's are just hacked up and scaled down versions of IBM's POWER4 processors--which are waay overpowered for PCs. The cost of developing the 970 is going to be miniscule because they didn't need to do much work, the R&D are sunk costs.
As for whether they're faster or not... I'm 1/2 convinced. It looks good, but the real tests will come when production versions come out. I'm fairly convinced the power gap is small enough to not matter tho.
as for that article...he knows about the g5 as much as I do. it's all speculation, and he's not unbiased at all (look at his "pricing is misleading point" toward the end...you can tell he's reaching.)
- ********0
yeah but what about the specs that he sites from apple's very own documentation? That seems kinda fishy on apple's part... but what evs... I can survive with 9.2.2 and a G4 533 for another year I'm guessing... maybe more. I had a 9500 for 6 years and I was able to make cash using it...
- kpl0
he found fishy stuff in there and jumped to conclusions. Apple is making controversial claims (which I don't necessarily buy...yet) and he's jumping all over it. I'll wait for ars technica to say something before I develop an opinion. otherwise, the 970's performance with Apple's claims is more or less close to what was being written about it when it was first revealed (last year).
- ********0
sounds fair... I'll wiat and see too. But damn OSX seems to me a processor hog none the less. I'm guessing that soley the heavy graphics ?
- unknown0
my g3 500 will last me forever!
- manilla0
The G5 demo at the SF developers conference was pretty special. Spec benchmark scores are all well and good, but I do my work in Photoshop... the duel G5 absolutely toasted the duel Xeon working on a 350mb psd file.