[DM-MUG] Compatibility with OS 9

[jim Lagnese]

OK. Well then, If it's less than 60 Bucks, then what the heck,
otherwise may be it's time for a new computer? I should talk, with the yikes
and all, but my situation is different.


> From: Matt W <maccelerate@mac.com>
> Reply-To: dmmug@dmmug.org
> Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 12:35:05 -0600
> To: dmmug@dmmug.org
> Subject: Re: [DM-MUG] Compatibility with OS 9
> 
> Sorry 'bout that...
> Big Picture: Performance per dollar is much lower for older Macs. Bondi
> iMacs are now 6+ years old.
> 
> Matthew
> 
> On Mar 29, 2004, at 10:10 AM, jim Lagnese wrote:
> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> 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.
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Dmmug mailing list
>> Dmmug@dmmug.org
>> http://cialug.org/mailman/listinfo/dmmug
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Dmmug mailing list
> Dmmug@dmmug.org
> http://cialug.org/mailman/listinfo/dmmug