Wayne's Experience with Mac OS X Tiger

[waynejkruse10]

how do i work out if its in a dual binary?

 

[Qiranworms]

I disagree again. I've used a G3 iBook with 256mb RAM running Tiger and everything works just as fast if not faster than my beasty G4 iBook with 1.25gb RAM running Panther.

Really? I find OS X hardly usable with less than 512 MB of RAM. I find the operating system really hogs RAM, but it seems to manage it well at least. Windows has the opposite problem. You can use it with 256 MB of RAM alright, but when you put it on computers with much higher amounts of RAM, it doesn't seem to utilize it nearly as well as it could. Why should a system with 2 GB of RAM honestly need to use a several hundred megabyte pagefile to run certain programs? ESPECIALLY when there's at least a third of the physical RAM left unused!? I don't understand it.

Linux, being a lot more scalable than the consumer operating systems, can run well on systems with very small amounts of RAM, depending on how you set it up.

Originally posted by waynejkruse10
Conclusion: OSX Good but by no means it is as good as the fanboys say.

Since when is anything ever quite as good as fanboys will tell you?

 

[waynejkruse10]

Since when is anything ever quite as good as fanboys will tell you?

touché

 

[mac_mogul]

Really?

Yep. My cousin has a 900mhz G3 iBook with Tiger on it, and the Finder works very quickly considering the lack of power.

 

[waynejkruse10]

an operating system performance isnt really dependant on processing power. If i equip a 550mhz P3 with a fast drive and 256mb ram it will run fast and cosistantly.

A operating systems feel on a computer aint a good way of testing its speed. XP runs speedy on even old computers ive installed it on but it had 256mb ram and a 7200rpm 40gb seagate drive.

 

[Apokalipse]

from my experience, XP really needs 512MB RAM to run well. 256MB it will run okay, but a lot of the time it i a bit sluggish, unless you disable a lot of things, such as the themes, animations, and a bunch of useless services

I have 1GB RAM in my system, and I just disable paging file completely. I also disable themes, animations, system restore, and a lot of useless services which are "supposed" to make things faster.

but yes, XP does manage RAM pretty poorly compared to OS X
mind you, it is much better than Windows 98.
Windows 98 was absolutely horrible the way it managed RAM, and systems very often crashed because of 98's poor RAM management.

I find that, properly maintained, an XP system can run quite well.

but the key words are: properly maintained.
OS X is a much lower maintenance OS than XP is. if you do not maintain an XP system, it will become very bad to run. however the way OS X manages things, given the same amount of maintenance as an XP system, will run a lot better.

 

[waynejkruse10]

from my experience, XP really needs 512MB RAM to run well. 256MB it will run okay, but a lot of the time it i a bit sluggish, unless you disable a lot of things, such as the themes, animations, and a bunch of useless services

I do that anyway . I find that XP runs ok on 256mb of ram, I also think that XP will get a big speed boost on faster hard drives.

but yes, XP does manage RAM pretty poorly compared to OS X

Agreed, Linux does a great job of managing ram as well. Im hoping Vista will come with some nicer memory management stuff.

 

[shdwsclan]

Mac os x is like Gnome, and i hate gnome.....

I like KDE, on SUSE linux....

You have virtual desktop so you dont have to minimize, you have the minimization bar....and you have a start menu thingy.....and it supports about as much drivers as windows......and more secure than windows or mac os....and if you need that windows app....then get wine....
But i do multiboot with windows and mac os....