Jaguar Compatibility
- Started
- Last post
- 28 Responses
- ribit0
"Running 2003 software on 1998 hardware is just stupid. "
Sorry this doesn't work for you. Thats what I want to do. It works well for me.
"If you're just running Word then you don't need to bother with OS X. "
Is anyone here only running Word and NO other software? Mail, AIM/ichat? Web? File Sharing, FTP? Making backups?. Lots of reasons to be more compatible with your other OSX and Windows computers.
- cinder0
Running 2003 software on 1998 hardware is just stupid.
If you're just running Word then you don't need to bother with OS X.
- cinder0
Running 2003 software on 1998 hardware is just stupid.
If you're just running Word then you don't need to bother with OS X.
- atomica0
nice.
- unknown0
The reason I upgraded was for the multi tasking... OS 9 is faster but had more problems. My G3 has been serving files now without a crash or shut down (but a few update restarts) for 2 years in April.
- sweetasbro0
atomica -
I can use OS X on a 6 Y.O 350 MHz B/W G3 w/384 RAM no real pains;
Yet it is barely tolerable to run XP Pro on a 3.5 Y.O 733MHz P3 w/384 Ram
You are obviously a Bill Gate fan boy - time to try something "different"
- ribit0
Depends what you want to do really... proper multi-tasking and reliability makes up for sa few seconds lost here and there, plus if the Mac is just being used for browsing or mail or whatever it might be more important to be up to date, not ultra-fast.
- unknown0
enough! Windows blows and macs suck whatever... let's help the dude figure if it's worth upgrading. The point is it WILL work for what you need it to do but the video card drags the system a bit. although, it's not unworkable. If you feel you need or want to upgrade- you can- but OS 9 will run a bit quicker since it's less graphic intensive.
- ribit0
Jaguar, even...
- ribit0
What happened to the thread about Panther compatibility?
- atomica0
roflmao..... where is the data to back that up?
- sweetasbro0
yeah, worked on my old B/W G3, though upgraded to 10.3 recently and it is much more responsive but as some have suggested the video card is what drags it down.
At least with a Mac, with each upgrade of OS (X), it gets faster (on the same hardware), where as with each Win upgrade it gets slower if usable at all.
- atomica0
Didn't mean to make it that, just when I think efficient office and accounting, I think PC as does most of the industry. And I must retort that 2000 was not a tiny upgrade from 98 and to think that, well..... I just don't want to comment. 2000 is a completely different kernel/engine. yes a familiar interface, after all, people like familiarity.
- unknown0
yeah, I run XP on a three year old machine and it just clicks and clicks away when I'm just moving the freakin mouse.... plus that's because XP is nothing than a face lift for 2000, which was a minor imporvement of 98, which was a tighter version than 95, which is what 3.0 was suppose to be... except XP has a better looking cartoon dog and talking paper clip.
Why does it always have to come to the mac/pc thing?
- ribit0
...and you can run OSX on quite a few Macs that are over 6 years old... bleah back.
- atomica0
You're running word and other office/accounting apps. You shouldn't have to worry about runnin' 10..... stick with 9. Avoid the bloat. ;) That or get a PC..... I can run XP Pro on a 5-6 year old machine no prob... bleah to mac.
- unknown0
runs fine on my B&W 350MHZ a bit sluggish due to the video card but surfs the net and uploads files all day just fine.
- ribit0
Depends on the specific model too. I tried to install 10.3 on a 250mhz WallStreet Powerbook... but it isnt supported unless you use a 3rd party install script.. but it might be supported in an upgrade.