PDA

View Full Version : Does 10.3 make THAT much difference?



Jimbo
21st May 2004, 01:45 PM
I have noticed you guys raving about the speed of 10.3 on older machines? is this really true or is it like putting windoze eggs pee on a pentium 500?

the reason i ask is my g/f's g4 533 is a bit pokey running 10.2.8 so if i can get panther on there would it make that much difference? its got 256mb ram and a really noisy 80gb drive CDRW etc.

Disko
21st May 2004, 01:54 PM
If it can run 10.2.8 - then it will run 10.3.3 better. It is more streamlined, basic folder browsing is twice as fast (my opinion).

One thing though - make sure you have enough ram. I've seen panther run on 128MB ram, but ideally - you'd want at least 512MB.

InfiniteAnthony
21st May 2004, 02:18 PM
I noticed a reasonable difference and kicked myself for not buying 10.3 sooner.

Plus Exposť is the coolest! Specially for developers

Currawong
21st May 2004, 02:49 PM
I'd say 10.3.3 is very noticably faster. Just installed it on an iMac 266 and was surprised at how responsive it is. Apple are continually optimising the system, so, as always, even point updates will be faster generally.

stickman67
21st May 2004, 03:39 PM
I've put it on my old B&W G3 (though I've cheated and put a G4/500 daughterboard in the old girl) and it is noticeably faster than 10.2.x.

Well worth the upgrade, IMHO. B)

cmetom
21st May 2004, 04:51 PM
Originally posted by Jimbo@May 21 2004, 02:45 PM
I have noticed you guys raving about the speed of 10.3 on older machines? is this really true or is it like putting windoze eggs pee on a pentium 500?

the reason i ask is my g/f's g4 533 is a bit pokey running 10.2.8 so if i can get panther on there would it make that much difference? its got 256mb ram and a really noisy 80gb drive CDRW etc.
hehe sometimes cliches are so, because they're true!! yes it's faster - in the realworld sense of faster.

i'd be like putting Windows 95 on a Pentium 500 - noticably "zippy"!! :D

moo
21st May 2004, 05:59 PM
what they said....

Radar
21st May 2004, 06:34 PM
The speed of my 350Mhz iMac increased exponentially when I installed 10.3. The difference is massive. With 10.2.8, it litterally took around 5 minutes to turn on cfrom cold, and was very, very choppy. With 10.3, it takes about 30 seconds to load up, and is alot more zippy in all aspects. It really does have a massive effect, that I hope continues with 10.4

stickman67
22nd May 2004, 07:55 PM
Originally posted by Radar@May 21 2004, 06:34 PM
[...] It really does have a massive effect, that I hope continues with 10.4
Amen! :lol:

kim jong il
31st May 2004, 06:47 PM
I just have to add a comment although it has been pretty much all said already. 10.3.x is an absolute treat to use. Smooth, fast and stable.

Originally I thought so little of 10.2.6 that I used 9.2.2 in preference to it for just about everything. I couldn't even be bothered updating to 10.2.8 because it just plain did not seem worth it. 2 hours with 10.3 and 6 months later I haven't looked back. I REALLY love it.

NOTE: personal opinion follows based exclusively on MY experience. YMMV

On machines: imacs G3 350 (now someone elses) and DV400: 128 MB you can install it but you will be surprised by constant HD activity, 192 MB you can run safari and mail simultaneously but the HD will still run quite alot (explanation: VM at work. look at the activity monitor to see the number of page ins and outs and this will make more sense-'page'=4096 bytes) and it will run out of headroom quickly and performance can be surprisingly bad. 384 MB and it starts to get efficient and performance becomes consistently fast and the HD noticeably less active. The memory manager is now able to cache alot of data in RAM and performance reflects this. (access to cached data in RAM is measured in nanoseconds rather than milliseconds from the HD) 512 MB and above? Beautiful.
I haven't tried testing different RAM configurations on the new G4 but i expect the results would be similar.

Sorry, where was I?

Yep, it makes that much difference. Would have to be one of the most worthwhile software purchases I have ever made

cheers, kim

1/6/04 EDIT: (for those with low RAM configurations. when I say 'runs out of headroom' were talking 5+ open windows each with about 8 active tabs. I could hear you all thinking 'but mine works fine'. It was not meant to sound critical, in fact I am and was impressed by it)

elvis
31st May 2004, 08:17 PM
My experiences mirror those above. My little iMac happily chugs away at 333MHz with 128MB RAM. It's lived through all of the MacOSX incarnations, and with each release they get faster and faster. 10.3 is definitely the preferred partner for this little guy, and performs very well despite it's age.

I'd love to stick more RAM in it, but that's unlikely at this stage. A faster hard drive would probably improve VM thrash times. The default iMac hard disks were all 3400RPM, so a newer 7200RPM drive with 8MB cache would help enormously, and not really cost the earth (compared to tracking down compatible 128MB PC133 SODIMM-SDRAM modules that worked with the iMac).