OS X on stock 8600/200 mhz? |
January, 30, 2003 2:52 PM |
laudou462 |
Hi I just read for sale ad on eBay. The seller claims that the 8600/200 he is putting up for sale runs great on MAC OS X 10.1.5 which he installed using XPostfacto. Is this possible or not? Laurier |
. |
RE: OS X on stock 8600/200 mhz? |
February, 15, 2003 12:24 AM |
jpanch |
. |
I have a 8600/200 with a G3/500 Card installed and 700+ Ram. It is usable on 10.1.5. I also upgraded a beige G3 with a 500 Mhz Zif and I find that the beige G3 is alot faster running 10.1.5 especially with quicktime streaming. Example the switch ads that seem to just stutter alot on the 8600. I guess the video and vram may be the difference. I was wondering if anyone running the radeon 7000 has any comments on this and if 10.2.4 has made a diffence on the ATI cards. |
. |
RE: OS X on stock 8600/200 mhz? |
February, 10, 2003 7:10 PM |
marcush |
. |
That's a good question. I'm certain that the stock G4 machine would beat the upgraded legacy mac. There are comparative tests that were done for processor upgrade reviews, maybe even exactly what you are looking for, on xlr8yourmac.com. |
. |
RE: OS X on stock 8600/200 mhz? |
February, 10, 2003 6:44 PM |
laudou462 |
. |
Thanks four your reply Marcush You touched the point I was bringing up. Is there a way to compare the speed of, say, a stock G4/450 and an upgraded legacy Mac with the same processor speed.Is the difference very important? Laurier |
. |
RE: OS X on stock 8600/200 mhz? |
February, 10, 2003 1:46 PM |
marcush |
. |
landou462, MPEG2 is DVD quality video and much more processor intensive to encode than quicktime video. |
. |
RE: OS X on stock 8600/200 mhz? |
February, 10, 2003 9:38 AM |
laudou462 |
. |
matti My G4/450 takes about 5 minutes to encode 1 minute of QuickTime movie into SVCD. Does this task compare with the one you mention? (mpeg to SVCD) Then how do you explain the much slower speed of your upgraded 8600? I might think about it twice before I upgrade mine. Thanks |
. |
RE: OS X on stock 8600/200 mhz? |
February, 02, 2003 11:47 AM |
matti.haveri |
. |
I ran 10.1.5 for a while on a stock 604e CPU 8600/200 and it was usable although somewhat slow. It was OK for casual use and for learning Mac OS X. I now have XLR8 G4 450 and a 75G Deskstar @ Sonnet Tempo ATA100 and the CPU and the faster HD interface make it considerably faster although I bet new Macs run circles around it. But it is still fast enough for me. BTW, encoding 1 minute of MPEG2 for a SVCD takes about 20 minutes via mpeg2enc in MediaPipe. |
. |
RE: OS X on stock 8600/200 mhz? |
February, 02, 2003 10:15 AM |
brubaker276 |
. |
For what its worth. I have an 8600 with Sonnet's G4/800 instaled. OSX installed with XPostFacto 2.25 and used Sonnet's Fine tuning program to intsll L2 and L3 cache. I also added a Sonnet Tempo Trio and Radion 7000 cards. I am running OSX 10.2.3 on one drive and OS 9.2 on another. All systems are fine except for DVD. DVD works great under OS 9.2 with a patched DVD 2.7 player but can not get it (DVD Player 3.3) under OSX 1.2.3. Anyone with tips on how to boot and burn under Jaguar would be great;ly appreciated. |
. |
RE: OS X on stock 8600/200 mhz? |
February, 01, 2003 8:55 PM |
earlyd416 |
. |
I have a 8600/200 with a Powerlogix G4/450 CPU card with 512MB of memory. I ran the first versions of X 10.1 with the 604/200 CPU and it was slow. I would not recommend X w/o a G4/450 card. --Dwight P.S. I now hardy ever run 9.1. So, spend the money & get at least a G4/450 CPU card. |
. |
RE: OS X on stock 8600/200 mhz? |
January, 30, 2003 10:45 PM |
wove |
. |
Well 10.1.5 ran faster on the 7500/200 than I expected it ever would. It was useable. Clearly it is slower than what Apple considers acceptable. If one stays with running single applications and have little or nothing running in the background then the from application will be useable, but a 7500/200 will bog down very quickly. I actually did not notice much speed increase going from a 7500/200 to an 8600/300. I did not think the cache on the Mach V processor card was enabled, but I could find no utilities to verify its status. For me the install was painless, I followed the directions from XPostFacto and from the OS X installer and everything proceeded with out problems. bill |
. |
RE: OS X on stock 8600/200 mhz? |
January, 30, 2003 8:10 PM |
alan |
. |
Just keep in mind that unless you get a G3/G4 upgrade card, you can't go up to 10.2. Although Ryan is working on this... I have an 8600/300 that I upgraded with a G3/500mhz card quite some time ago, and you would be surprised how much of a difference this makes. These cards are much cheaper than they used to be, and I recommend them if you are going to run OS X. |
. |
RE: OS X on stock 8600/200 mhz? |
January, 30, 2003 6:15 PM |
laudou462 |
. |
Thanks for your reply Is the performance acceptable on your 7500? And on your 8600? Is there any special trick you have to know in order to install on an 8600/300? I have one such machine. Laurier |
. |
RE: OS X on stock 8600/200 mhz? |
January, 30, 2003 6:06 PM |
wove |
. |
Yes it is. I ran 10.1.5 on a 7500/200 and on a 8600/250. And I looking forward to running 10.2 on an 8600/300. bill |