Any reason not to go to 10.2.6? |
July, 13, 2003 2:35 AM |
ivanxqz |
I've been running OS X 10.2.4 with XPF on my 2400c/G3 with only minor issues, but I would like to upgrade to 10.2.6 so I can run certain software. Are there any good reason to NOT go to 10.2.6? |
. |
RE: Any reason not to go to 10.2.6? |
July, 23, 2003 2:04 PM |
jseibyl |
. |
I actually noticed an increase in redrawing of windows, etc. I am using PCI Extreme to enable quartz extreme on my radeon 7000. It was slow on 10.2, I went through the upgrades the second they came out and am very happy with 10.2.6 |
. |
RE: Any reason not to go to 10.2.6? |
July, 20, 2003 5:37 AM |
ivanxqz |
. |
Haven't yet installed 10.2.6, but I will sometime soon. There's the minor issue of the boot volume not having enough space, and I'm not sure how I'm going to work around it just yet. The 2400c was (and is) expandable to 80 MB very easily, but there were a few 96 MB cards made in Japan, allowing a total of 112 MB, and that's what I have. It's enough, but I wouldn't want to run Classic or use Final Cut Pro. OS X is no speed demon, but it's usable. (Recently, a bunch of new 96 MB chips surfaced on eBay as well, though I don't know how well they work.) Since you can't sleep with XPF, I use the machine as a server, and since you can't dim the backlight after boot, I leave it off and mostly control the machine with Timbuktu. |
. |
RE: Any reason not to go to 10.2.6? |
July, 15, 2003 10:02 PM |
marcus_ck_lee |
. |
Go for 10.2.6 |
. |
RE: Any reason not to go to 10.2.6? |
July, 13, 2003 8:57 AM |
gregoryy |
. |
2400c... wow! 64MB? or can they now take larger density RAM? Tell us how it goes. just backup your home directory library and files. |
. |
RE: Any reason not to go to 10.2.6? |
July, 13, 2003 8:54 AM |
fixitjc |
. |
None that I have seen Jim |
|
|