[DM-MUG] Compatibility with OS 9

[Matt W]

Agreed, however, I'm currently running Panther Server under 128 MB's of 
RAM (on an iMac). The OS scales well and I haven't had any performance 
issues on the server side, I'm not using the GUI. I've actually 
installed and run Jaguar Server with 64 MB's of memory. It sure was 
slow but it ran without incident. The minimum requirement (still listed 
at 128 MB's on the box) certainly isn't enough for the OS and a gfx app 
like iPhoto but I think 256 would be acceptable with the proper 
expectations. Don't get me wrong here, I'm not saying, "Don't upgrade 
your Mac, lower your expectations!" Just keep the big picture in mind.

The Rev. A - D iMac memory can be VERY expensive (low-profile, low 
DENSITY) which isn't commonly made by all vendors and the persnickety 
behaviour of OS X with substandard memory chips would steer me toward 
the more costly "brand-name" vendors like Kingston, Crucial, RAMjet et. 
al. That being the norm, I just checked MemoryX.com and they appear to 
have both the high-profile modules (the long ones that only fit in the 
top slot of various Macs such as the 233-333 iMacs) AND the low-profile 
modules (that fit in both slots). Prices look good. The other vendors 
appear to be carrying only the more costly low-profiles.

Anyway, that's probably too much information, but I like folks to be 
aware of the issues/options.

Matthew


On Mar 28, 2004, at 8:30 AM, jim Lagnese wrote:

> I'd say 512 MB is more like it. If you run top, you'll see the system 
> by
> itself can take between 200-240 MB (that's what I see I mine) of 
> memory by
> itself. Sure it will run with 256MB, but not optimally. On top of 
> that, OS X
> isn't immune to memory leaks that can eat up free RAM.
>
>> From: Matthew Wheeler <maccelerate@earthlink.net>
>> Reply-To: dmmug@dmmug.org
>> Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2004 00:00:17 -0600
>> To: dmmug@dmmug.org
>> Subject: Re: [DM-MUG] Compatibility with OS 9
>>
>> Sure it is possible. If the drive is less than 8 GB's it's even easy.
>> Larger than 8 and it's not hard, but it takes a few extra steps to
>> partition the drive. OS X will only install on the first partition if
>> it's smaller than 8 GB's.
>>
>> I'd recommend 256 MB's of RAM, and make sure you check the firmware
>> before install. Don't expect incredible performance but it should 
>> work.
>> I'd go with Panther (10.3.x) and iPhoto 4.01.
>>
>> You'll also have to upgrade your Classic system to 9.1 (if not higher)
>> to use it under X.
>>
>> Matthew
>>
>> On Mar 26, 2004, at 10:53 AM, Owen Duncan wrote:
>>
>>> Along the same line of questioning, is it possible, and would it be
>>> worth the effort to upgrade a bondi blue Imac from 8.6 to OS 10 for
>>> the purposes of using iphoto?
>>>
>>> Owen Duncan
>>>
>>>>> Power Mac 6300, for example, can run 9.1, but I wouldn't. It's just
>>>>> too slow. On the other hand, if speed isn't your first
>>>>> priority...don't let me stop you.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I would also be cautious with 7100 which my daughter has. I don't
>>>> feel that the effort to upgrade my 6500 to 9.2 is worth it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Ray
>>>>
>>>> Des Moines, IA Mac Users Group
>>>> Fourth Tues of the month.
>>>> See
>>>>
>>>>    <WWW.DMMUG.ORG>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Dmmug mailing list
>>>> Dmmug@dmmug.org
>>>> http://cialug.org/mailman/listinfo/dmmug
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Dmmug mailing list
>>> Dmmug@dmmug.org
>>> http://cialug.org/mailman/listinfo/dmmug
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Dmmug mailing list
>> Dmmug@dmmug.org
>> http://cialug.org/mailman/listinfo/dmmug
>
> _______________________________________________
> Dmmug mailing list
> Dmmug@dmmug.org
> http://cialug.org/mailman/listinfo/dmmug
>