On Jan 2, 2004, at 6:05 PM, Peter da Silva wrote:
10.1 will run on a 601 processor if you really want to harm yourself ... in comparison a 604 200MHz does very well.
I didn't think it'd run on a 601. I do know what it's like on a CPU about
the speed the original poster has, and I was also amazed how well it ran...
but that doesn't mean I'd consider it usable.
Well, I haven't done it, but a buddy of mine claims he got it to work on a 7200, and that is a 601 based Mac. Spose he could have been making it up but thing is, UNIX systems, as long as the OS can load on the architecture, the speed of the processor seems to determine only performance not compatibility.
I recall ArsTech I think it was when the Public Beta was out, they had OS X running on a system with only 8 or 16MB or RAM. They couldn't get it to install on that, but it would run on it after the install ... just paging and paging ...
20 hours for the install and thirty seconds for windows to open wasn't
exaggeration: I timed it. For something like iTunes, if that's all you
ran, I think it would work. I think it would cost more to make it anything
but painful than it would be worth.
No argument there.
Pity they didn't stick with Openstep/Rhapsody. I'm running NS3 on a 68040/25 (Mono slab) and it's zippy.
Well, in the NeXTSTEP/OPENSTEP community Mac OS X is considered OpenStep 5. I have a mono slab sitting in my basement, I have a copy of NeXTSTEP 3.1 laying around, don't spose you would mind talking to me about making them work together? If so drop me a line off list.
Rhapsody would not have given Apple a lot of what they needed to bring Mac OS X to market sadly. Also, from what I have read of OpenSTEP and NeXTSTEP, NeXTSTEP runs excellent on black hardware, but OpenSTEP is generally regarded as being run best on faster Intel based hardware. Requirements for all systems began to jump in the end of the 1990s. Speed is also highly subjective based on what one does ... I friend of mine often speaks of what he was told on a Corel mailing list, there was a gentleman who moved from a Windows system to an OS X G4 system about a year ago. The guy said that while Windows PCs were seemingly faster, he didn't really see speed as an issue on a Mac OS X system used for professional production [what he was doing with his].
I have used XP Pro on 2GHz PCs before and was not all that impressed. I can get similar GUI performance on a G4 550. Will it get as high of frame rates in HALO? No ... but most people aren't playing HALO ...
David
-- Unsupported OS X is sponsored by <http://lowendmac.com/>
Support Low End Mac <http://lowendmac.com/lists/support.html>
Unsupported OS X list info <http://lowendmac.com/lists/unsupported.html> --> AOL users, remove "mailto:"; Send list messages to: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To unsubscribe, email: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For digest mode, email: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subscription questions: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Archive <http://www.mail-archive.com/unsupportedosx%40mail.maclaunch.com/>
Using a Mac? Free email & more at Applelinks! http://www.applelinks.com
