Forums
New posts
Articles
Product Reviews
Policies
FAQ
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
General Discussions
Switcher Hangout (Windows to Mac)
hi, I am new....gonna try mac.....
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Brown Study" data-source="post: 542860" data-attributes="member: 3889"><p>Direct comparisons between Intel chips and the pre-Intel Mac PowerPC chips lead to the wrong conclusions because the PowerPC chips performed more actions per clock cycle than did the Intel chips of the same era. See <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megahertz_Myth" target="_blank"><strong>the megahertz myth</strong></a>.</p><p></p><p>I ran OS X Panther, the immediate predessor to Tiger, on a G3 tower with 512 megs of RAM. It was slow, but not unbearably so, though I would hate to go back to it. OS 9 on this ancient iMac I'm using now is two or three times as fast as OS X on that G3.</p><p></p><p>You'd probably have better luck running Panther than the newer Tiger. But if you could swing a G4 machine, even of the same clock speed, you'd be much better off because the G4 chip handles OS X graphics better — it has the so-called velocity engine.</p><p></p><p>With any slow machine especially, more RAM is better. It would not have to write to the disk as often if it had a gig or two of RAM rather than 512 megs, so it would, in effect, be faster.</p><p></p><p>I won't venture an opinion on one model laptop versus another because I have never used one for any length of time, and know little about them. I prefer desktops.</p><p></p><p><strong>Edited to add:</strong> Regarding that machine with 9.1: OS 9 needs constant TLC in comparison to OS X. Sooner or later, probably sooner, you'd need Norton Disk Doctor (absolute poison to OS X but excellent for OS 9) and/or Disk Warrior for OS 9. You'd need a ton of good luck finding them.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Brown Study, post: 542860, member: 3889"] Direct comparisons between Intel chips and the pre-Intel Mac PowerPC chips lead to the wrong conclusions because the PowerPC chips performed more actions per clock cycle than did the Intel chips of the same era. See [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megahertz_Myth"][B]the megahertz myth[/B][/URL]. I ran OS X Panther, the immediate predessor to Tiger, on a G3 tower with 512 megs of RAM. It was slow, but not unbearably so, though I would hate to go back to it. OS 9 on this ancient iMac I'm using now is two or three times as fast as OS X on that G3. You'd probably have better luck running Panther than the newer Tiger. But if you could swing a G4 machine, even of the same clock speed, you'd be much better off because the G4 chip handles OS X graphics better — it has the so-called velocity engine. With any slow machine especially, more RAM is better. It would not have to write to the disk as often if it had a gig or two of RAM rather than 512 megs, so it would, in effect, be faster. I won't venture an opinion on one model laptop versus another because I have never used one for any length of time, and know little about them. I prefer desktops. [B]Edited to add:[/B] Regarding that machine with 9.1: OS 9 needs constant TLC in comparison to OS X. Sooner or later, probably sooner, you'd need Norton Disk Doctor (absolute poison to OS X but excellent for OS 9) and/or Disk Warrior for OS 9. You'd need a ton of good luck finding them. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
General Discussions
Switcher Hangout (Windows to Mac)
hi, I am new....gonna try mac.....
Top