Author Topic: Computer speed (Read 3894 times)

Steve_J · « **on:** February 24, 2003, 12:56:00 PM »

Just wondering what TSers think about processor speed. How fast is fast enough?

I'm currently using 8.6 and running at 240 MHz and would like to upgrade to OSX, but the faster they go the more they cost. Soooo... if I do e-mail, internet surfing, some graphics (not the big stuff like videos or Photoshop just a few pictures of the grandkids), word processing, spreadsheets (not too big). How fast is fast enough, 700MHz, 800, 867, 1GHz, 1.25, 1.42?

RobW · « **Reply #1 on:** February 24, 2003, 01:55:00 PM »

Hi, My iMac (DV+) is a 450. For the most part I use it as you say you use yours. I've been running OSX since December, and have not had a problem with speed issues since making the move to OSX. Make sure you have enough (or more than enough) memory.

Hope this helps!

sluggo · « **Reply #2 on:** February 24, 2003, 02:07:00 PM »

I've been using an iMac 600 since December 2001 for pretty much the same purposes as you, Steve. It came with OS X, but I've since moved to Jaguar and bumped the memory up to 640 MB. Does everything I need with ease.

kelly · « **Reply #3 on:** February 24, 2003, 07:17:00 PM »

Fast enough for OS 9.x or OS X?

My 300 MHz 6400 was fast enough for most things.

If all I cared about was faster Internet I could have got a Cable Modem.

If you want to run OS X well you better be 400 or better.

The higher the better.

krissel · « **Reply #4 on:** February 24, 2003, 10:15:00 PM »

For your purposes anything in the 500 or above in a G3/4 would more than suffice. As Rob mentioned, RAM is very important in X.
I ran 10.1.5 on a 350mhz/604e but had 1.5 G of RAM and it actually ran pretty fast considering it wasn't a G chip.

If money is important you really don't need anything over the 1G mhz or even a dual processor to do the tasks you mentioned.

Al · « **Reply #5 on:** February 24, 2003, 11:45:00 PM »

IAWalloftheabove.

I have two beiges that are running Jaguar at 400 MHz with ATI Rage128 video cards and 20 GB 7200 rpm IDE hard drives. One has 350+MB's memory the other 560 MB's.

They run Jaguar good enough to do what they are intended. Nothing heavy, mostly what you plan to do. But, when I try booting into OS 9, the speed difference is impressive, OS 9 is so much more responsive. I still prefer Jagaur for it's pluses, protected memory and stability, etc.

What type of Mac are you using, Steve?

atjurhs · « **Reply #6 on:** February 25, 2003, 11:18:00 PM »

I run a 550 PowerBook G4 with 1 Gig of RAM and a 32Mb video card and always the latest OSX version available. I have consistently found that my machine is CPU limited and not RAM limited when I have multiple apps open and running. BTW, I share a T1 line, so downloads and Net Surfing are never a speed issue.

So it really comes down to how you use the machine and for what.

IMNSHO...

I would recommend going with one of the 867 models as they have the 133 Mhz bus speeds and 64Mb graphics cards. I would also recommend a full 1 Gig of RAM on a single stick - it's cheapenough these days and greatly outperforms RAM software and virtual disks. The single stick also gives you the option of adding more RAM later if you find you need it.

I think the 64Mb card is fairly important, even if you are not a "gamer" but rather for "upgradablity" reasons. The 32Mb card I have just barely made the minimum requirements for Quartz processing within Jaguar, and I suspect that it won't meet the minimum requirements of Steve Jobs' next major OS upgrade.

If you decide to go with an "older machine", make certain that it is Jaguar compatible. I did notice major speed improvements between 10.1.x and the cat.

Hopefully I didn't offend anyone too much

Gregg · « **Reply #7 on:** February 25, 2003, 12:51:00 PM »

Steve, what will you be able to do in OSX that you want to do now but can't? It only has to make sense to you, I'm just playing devil's advocate. I moved up to a G3 when my 68030 couldn't run some games the kids wanted, and it was a struggle to keep it cleaned out enough for things I wanted to fit, and it was as slow as molasses in Dallas this winter. There were probably other things it couldn't do at the time that I'm forgetting.

I upgraded to 8.1 with the new purchase, and stayed there until I was able to obtain OS9 for free because of the educator's deal on OSX that Apple offered. (It's nice to have a teacher in the family!) It's not that I'm cheap, I just didn't have the need to switch. But, if I can upgrade for nothing, why not?

Had a 1984 Corolla until I sold it in 1996. Why? Because my kids legs no longer folded into the back seat. It still ran fine. How's your Mac running on 8.6?

my 2 cents
(if it's worth that)

Bill · « **Reply #8 on:** February 25, 2003, 02:19:00 PM »

The iMac/400DV I had did ok with X 10.1.5. It only had a 8mb video card though. Kind of doubt if it would been ok with Jaguar. I did have it maxed out with ram,which helped.

So I'd have to agree with some of the above.

Hey Gregg .... Jag is pretty!

Steve_J · « **Reply #9 on:** February 27, 2003, 11:01:00 PM »

Thanks to all for the information. As always, TSers come through. After reading all the inputs the answer is obvious. Whatever works best for you! Or as atjurhs says, "So it really comes down to how you use the machine and for what."

Way back when I used my Apple IIC plus until there was no software to do what I wanted. I then went to a MacPlus until it was so slow it took forever to run my MacInTax program. I then went to my current machine a 6100/66 which has been accelerated and RAM maxed several times. It still does almost everything I want to do, albeit slowly in some cases. I guess you could say I operate behind the curve, waaaay behind.

Let's see, if I put in a 500 MHz accelerator card I could still keep my 6100. Or maybe I should get something with a faster bus and PCI and go to 9.x. But what about USB and Firewire? Here we go again .... decisions .... decisions .... decisions.

kelly · « **Reply #10 on:** February 27, 2003, 11:12:00 PM »

Steve. Personally, I would not put another dime in that machine.

Something similar to this would do you very well.

Refurbished eMac G4/700 17in for $699

http://dealmac.com/articles/48219.html

http://dealmac.com/sections/systems.html

I would recommend an older one that still boots OS 9.x Most of these would.

http://new.lowendmac.com/imac/edeals.html

Bill · « **Reply #11 on:** February 27, 2003, 11:20:00 PM »

When Steve Jobs and gang dropped the prices down on many machines Steve J,in way I'd think on picking up a new machine now that's all ready to go.
Even their low end models -read- good.

Then there is the idea of the past machine prices are dropping in price real fast.
Which sort of could be a better deal.

atjurhs · « **Reply #12 on:** February 27, 2003, 04:53:00 PM »

Whatever you choose to do, IF you want to continue to play in the Mac world (and live without fences), you are going to have to come over to the "Bright Side" of OSX.

Recall that Mr. Jobs has officially terminated all other OS activities including "support" (but I could be wrong on that).

So at a minimum, get a G4, and as I stated earlier think about at least 1/2 a gig of RAM but a full 1 gig would be better, and yea you can get by on the 32Mb video cards taking full advantage of the Cat, but will that always be the case? So plan on a 64Mb video card. The iMacs are cheap enough.

taliesin · « **Reply #13 on:** March 01, 2003, 05:26:00 PM »

Now that was an interesting thought, atjurhs, with the original question answered.
You sent me scurrying to the OS 9 support/knowledge base to see whether you were right.
In fact, they're still updating articles on 9 and not just ones that relate to Classic and OS X.

[ 03-01-2003, 06:31 PM: Message edited by: taliesin ]

kelly · « **Reply #14 on:** March 01, 2003, 05:29:00 PM »

Old stuff.

http://karchive.info.apple.com/

News:

Author Topic: Computer speed (Read 3894 times)