[DM-MUG] Compatibility with OS 9

[jim Lagnese]

> 
> 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.

128 MB or 64 MB is ridiculous.  Especially when we live in a age where
memory is relatively cheap. I have 512 MB and I run into slowness, memory
leaks etc, especially with concurrent users. I don't run server, but I run
Apache, EIMS, 2 browsers, iChat, Eudora, Dreamweaver, SETI, and word at
times. Acrobat and imageready when needed. When I had a TiBook, I had 1 Gig
of Ram, and that was about right for me (more would have been better, what
the heck.). Big picture? You'll have to explain.

> 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.

Yes OS X is particular about memory.