BEST OS FOR IBOOK G3/500MHZ/384MB??
abpp
of RAM that I have for a 6 year old (to play DVDs and browse
Disney.com and such): Mac OS 10.2.x or 10.3.x??
Geoffrey S. Mendelson
Tiger. It will allow you to use a recent version of Safari or Firefox
to browse Disney.com, and VLC to play DVDs.
It WON'T be fast enough to play the videos on the site, you may have a
very frustrated child.
I would not waste my time with 10.2 or 10.3 neither of which will support a
new enough browser.
Geoff.
--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel g...@mendelson.com N3OWJ/4X1GM
New word I coined 12/13/09, "Sub-Wikipedia" adj, describing knowledge or
understanding, as in he has a sub-wikipedia understanding of the situation.
i.e possessing less facts or information than can be found in the Wikipedia.
David Empson
> abpp wrote:
> > What would be better to install in an old iBook G3/500mhz with 384 MB
> > of RAM that I have for a 6 year old (to play DVDs and browse
> > Disney.com and such): Mac OS 10.2.x or 10.3.x??
>
>
> Tiger. It will allow you to use a recent version of Safari or Firefox
> to browse Disney.com, and VLC to play DVDs.
I'd modify that slightly: Tiger (10.4) with a RAM upgrade to 640 MB to
get better performance. It will be painfully sluggish with 384 MB if you
are doing any significant web browsing.
DVD playback should be fine on even older versions of Mac OS X (using
DVD player, if VLC doesn't work), or with only 384 MB on Tiger.
> It WON'T be fast enough to play the videos on the site, you may have a
> very frustrated child.
Agreed. (Even with a RAM upgrade.)
> I would not waste my time with 10.2 or 10.3 neither of which will support a
> new enough browser.
Agreed. Safari 1.3.2 (Jan 2006) is having an increasing degree of
compatibility problems with web sites, resulting in crashes. Firefox
2.0.0.20 (Dec 2008) was the last version which ran on 10.3.9, and it is
not being distributed any more.
The only current browsers I know of which still work on 10.3.9 are iCab
and Opera.
--
David Empson
dem...@actrix.gen.nz
Erik Richard Sørensen
I'll even recommend either 10.3.9 or 10.4.11. I've had 10.4.11 running
on a 50mhz Pismo with very good results. Originally only with 384mb RAM
but later upgradet to 768mb... Anyway, 10.4.x is both faster and better
than 10.3.x... But you might have trouble finding a 10.4.c CD set, if
you haven't a DVD drive in the iBook. - If I remember right some of them
came with a CD/CD-R only and some with DVD-Read/CD-R...
Cheers, Erik Richard
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Erik Richard Sørensen, Member of ADC, <mac-m...@Mstofanet.dk>
NisusWriter - The Future In Multilingual Text Processing - www.nisus.com
OpenOffice.org - The Modern Productivity Solution - www.openoffice.org
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
abpp
is an old (2001)
iBook G3/500mhz with DVD and only 384 MB of RAM that will not be
upgraded for
some time. So, which one would give me the less sluggishness for this
configuration:
10.2, 10.3, or 10.4???
abpp
is an old (2001)
iBook G3/500mhz with DVD and only 384 MB of RAM that will not be
upgraded for
some time. So, which one would give me the less sluggishness for this
configuration:
10.2, 10.3, or 10.4???
On Jan 3, 9:13 pm, Erik Richard Sørensen <NOS...@NOSPAM.dk> wrote:
> abpp wrote:
> > What would be better to install in an old iBook G3/500mhz with 384 MB
> > of RAM that I have for a 6 year old (to play DVDs and browse
> > Disney.com and such): Mac OS 10.2.x or 10.3.x??
>
> I'll even recommend either 10.3.9 or 10.4.11. I've had 10.4.11 running
> on a 50mhz Pismo with very good results. Originally only with 384mb RAM
> but later upgradet to 768mb... Anyway, 10.4.x is both faster and better
> than 10.3.x... But you might have trouble finding a 10.4.c CD set, if
> you haven't a DVD drive in the iBook. - If I remember right some of them
> came with a CD/CD-R only and some with DVD-Read/CD-R...
>
> Cheers, Erik Richard
>
> --
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Erik Richard Sørensen, Member of ADC, <mac-manN...@Mstofanet.dk>
David Empson
> I know 10.3 is better than 10.2, and 10.4 better than 10.3, but this
> is an old (2001)
> iBook G3/500mhz with DVD and only 384 MB of RAM that will not be
> upgraded for
> some time. So, which one would give me the less sluggishness for this
> configuration:
> 10.2, 10.3, or 10.4???
Steer clear of 10.2. You gain nothing except frustration due to being
limited to even older software.
10.3.9 if you aren't going to upgrade the memory.
The BIG problem is that 10.3.9 is not able to run modern versions of
mainstream web browsers. Safari on 10.3.9 is so old that it crashes when
accessing many web sites. You can't easily get Firefox 2, and if you
manage to locate a copy it is also getting rather out of date and may
have unknown security issues and/or compatiiblity problems with various
web sites.
If you intend to use it for web browsing, 10.4 gives you a lot more
options, and you may have to live with slow performance due to being
tight on available memory.
--
David Empson
dem...@actrix.gen.nz
Erik Richard Sørensen
abpp wrote:
> I know 10.3 is better than 10.2, and 10.4 better than 10.3, but this
> is an old (2001)
> iBook G3/500mhz with DVD and only 384 MB of RAM that will not be
> upgraded for
> some time. So, which one would give me the less sluggishness for this
> configuration:
> 10.2, 10.3, or 10.4???
I can guarantee you that you can very well run 10.4.x even with 384mb of
RAM. As already written I did it with a 500mhz Pismo PowerBook - also on
the net, - also using both net-radio and net-TV.
One thing you can do during the install process is to choose 'Custom'
and skip anything other than English language (presuming English is the
native spoken language), also skip _everything_ printer software. And
then afterwards just install printer software for that exact needed
printer and else nothing of all the apprx. 1 gig of useless printersoftware.
Regarding the languages, if you are speaking English natively, just
install English, but if you for example are speaking German as your
native language, I'll recommend to install both German and English. -
I.e. the native language + the English.
And surely do indeed not install the Asian languages unless one of these
is the native spoken language. - Alone the Chinese fonts are taking up
more than 2gb of space.
When/if you 'strip' the installation this way, I guarantee that you will
get one of the fastest 500mhz 10.4.x G3 machines at all - even with only
384mb of RAM!
When it comes to the internet... I will not recommend Safari nor
Firefox. Both are simply too heavy to work with on many sites. Get the
latest possible version of Opera instead - first of all because it's
screamingly fast and next you can fake MSIE-only sites to believe that
you are using MSIE with Opera.
Cheers, Erik Richard
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Erik Richard Sørensen, Member of ADC, <mac-m...@Mstofanet.dk>
Erik Richard Sørensen
Sure this will be the 10.4.x if you follow the instruction I've just
answered in hte other post. - Use custom install and only install
English if it's yur native language - else the native language + English
and skip all the printer software and install the needed printer
afterwards. - I can add to the last answer that I've installed 10.4 as
low as on 233mhz G3s with 256-360mb of RAM and none of them have had
problems neither with DVDs nor on the net!
Cheers, Erik Richard
abpp wrote:
> I know 10.3 is better than 10.2, and 10.4 better than 10.3, but this
> is an old (2001)
> iBook G3/500mhz with DVD and only 384 MB of RAM that will not be
> upgraded for
> some time. So, which one would give me the less sluggishness for this
> configuration:
> 10.2, 10.3, or 10.4???
>
> On Jan 3, 9:13 pm, Erik Richard Sørensen <NOS...@NOSPAM.dk> wrote:
>> abpp wrote:
>>> What would be better to install in an old iBook G3/500mhz with 384 MB
>>> of RAM that I have for a 6 year old (to play DVDs and browse
>>> Disney.com and such): Mac OS 10.2.x or 10.3.x??
>> I'll even recommend either 10.3.9 or 10.4.11. I've had 10.4.11 running
>> on a 50mhz Pismo with very good results. Originally only with 384mb RAM
>> but later upgradet to 768mb... Anyway, 10.4.x is both faster and better
>> than 10.3.x... But you might have trouble finding a 10.4.c CD set, if
>> you haven't a DVD drive in the iBook. - If I remember right some of them
>> came with a CD/CD-R only and some with DVD-Read/CD-R...
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Erik Richard Sørensen, Member of ADC, <mac-m...@Mstofanet.dk>
JF Mezei
find cheap RAM on the internet if you woish to boost it.
Maximum disk size for that vintage is 128gigs. I bought a 160 gig drive
and it showed up as 128 gig.
Geoffrey S. Mendelson
> I know 10.3 is better than 10.2, and 10.4 better than 10.3, but this
> is an old (2001)
> iBook G3/500mhz with DVD and only 384 MB of RAM that will not be
> upgraded for
> some time. So, which one would give me the less sluggishness for this
> configuration:
> 10.2, 10.3, or 10.4???
It's not a matter of slugishness, it's a mater of ability to do what you asked.
Quite simpley you won't be able to access the Disney.com web page with a
browser that runs on anything less than Tiger. It will crash, hang up or
render the pages incorrectly. Not much of a loss, IMHO, but the flash videos
which are all over the sight, won't play anyway.
You won't be able to find a current flash player, and if you could the
computer will be too slow to decode them.
To answer your question anyway, with 384M of RAM, Tiger will be faster than
anything before it. Each release of MacOS has had it's minimum memory needed
increased, but it's performance with that minimum or near it, has gotten better.
Erik Richard Sørensen
Eeh? - We're not talking about desktops but about a 500mhz iBook... I
have never heard that neither the Pismo 500 nor the iBook 500mhz had the
128gb limit. I replaced the ordinary 60gb disk with a TravelStar 160gb
and it showed all the space - partitined 60+100gb for OS 9.2.x and OS X
10.4.11. I still needed (and still does) the OS 9.x bootability and so
did he, who I sold it to 2 years ago...
cheers, Erik Richard
abpp
with this little machine, and 10.2 seems too slow now.
Thanks!
On Jan 4, 7:24 am, "Geoffrey S. Mendelson" <g...@cable.mendelson.com>
wrote:
Priam
Linux. Jooby is laughign at you. It would take less than an hour to
compile the OS X code for PowerPC but his message is: buy a new Mac, Moron!
Jochem Huhmann
While I agree with you that Apple is cutting off PPC-support a bit too
soon, this was to be expected. Apple has changed their CPU-platform
twice now (Motorola 68k -> PPC -> Intel) now. And sooner or later you
have to cut off support. Leopard is still supported until 10.7 and if
you're still using a PPC Mac then, there's still Linux. If there is
still a Linux supporting PPC then.
Jochem
--
"A designer knows he has arrived at perfection not when there is no
longer anything to add, but when there is no longer anything to take away."
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery
isw
"Geoffrey S. Mendelson" <g...@cable.mendelson.com> wrote:
> abpp wrote:
> > I know 10.3 is better than 10.2, and 10.4 better than 10.3, but this
> > is an old (2001)
> > iBook G3/500mhz with DVD and only 384 MB of RAM that will not be
> > upgraded for
> > some time. So, which one would give me the less sluggishness for this
> > configuration:
> > 10.2, 10.3, or 10.4???
>
> It's not a matter of slugishness, it's a mater of ability to do what you
> asked.
>
> Quite simpley you won't be able to access the Disney.com web page with a
> browser that runs on anything less than Tiger. It will crash, hang up or
> render the pages incorrectly. Not much of a loss, IMHO, but the flash videos
> which are all over the sight, won't play anyway.
>
> You won't be able to find a current flash player, and if you could the
> computer will be too slow to decode them.
>
> To answer your question anyway, with 384M of RAM, Tiger will be faster than
> anything before it. Each release of MacOS has had it's minimum memory needed
> increased, but it's performance with that minimum or near it, has gotten
> better.
I have 10.4 on a 400 MHz Pismo with 128 MB of RAM. Totally stable, but a
bit sluggish when changing context. As others have said, 10.4 is faster
and smaller than it's predecessors.
Isaac
isw
Erik Richard S�rensen <NOS...@NOSPAM.dk> wrote:
> When/if you 'strip' the installation this way, I guarantee that you will
> get one of the fastest 500mhz 10.4.x G3 machines at all - even with only
> 384mb of RAM!
Now I'm curious: why does leaving all those extra languages and printer
drivers off the disk make the machine go faster?
Can I just go in and delete them at any time, or do I have to reinstall?
I have a 400 MHz Pismo that could be more useful if it was a bit more
speedy.
Isaac
David Empson
> JF Mezei wrote:
> > I had 10.4 on my 350mhz G3. Can't remember how much RAM it had. You can
> > find cheap RAM on the internet if you woish to boost it.
> >
> > Maximum disk size for that vintage is 128gigs. I bought a 160 gig drive
> > and it showed up as 128 gig.
>
> Eeh? - We're not talking about desktops but about a 500mhz iBook... I
> have never heard that neither the Pismo 500 nor the iBook 500mhz had the
> 128gb limit. I replaced the ordinary 60gb disk with a TravelStar 160gb
> and it showed all the space - partitined 60+100gb for OS 9.2.x and OS X
> 10.4.11. I still needed (and still does) the OS 9.x bootability and so
> did he, who I sold it to 2 years ago...
Do you want to try that again? A 500 MHz iBook G3 (mid/late 2001) never
came with a hard drive larger than 20 GB (mine had 10 GB). The first
iBook model which came with a 60 GB hard drive was the final iBook G3
(900 MHz) in April 2003.
MacTracker doesn't know whether iBook G3s support drives larger than 128
GB, but says that iBook G4s (from late 2003) do.
There is no difference between laptop and desktop chipsets or drives in
terms of ATA protocol versions. Drives larger than 128 GB were supported
in ATA-6 (or as an extension to ATA-5), which Apple started using in
some desktop models in 2002, but not in PowerBook G4s until 2003. Not
enough information on iBook G3s, but I highly doubt they were ahead of
the PowerBook G4.
--
David Empson
dem...@actrix.gen.nz
David Empson
> In article <4b41ae21$0$4805$ba62...@nntp02.dk.telia.net>,
> Erik Richard S�rensen <NOS...@NOSPAM.dk> wrote:
>
> > When/if you 'strip' the installation this way, I guarantee that you will
> > get one of the fastest 500mhz 10.4.x G3 machines at all - even with only
> > 384mb of RAM!
>
> Now I'm curious: why does leaving all those extra languages and printer
> drivers off the disk make the machine go faster?
Removing them would save a fair amount of disk space, but neglible
memory.
The additional language files are ignored if that language is not the
active one for the application's user interface. There may be memory
overhead in the order of tens of bytes to keep track of which languages
are supported by a running application, and I doubt the system even
notices apart from the point when the application is launched or in
places like Finder's Get Info dialog.
Printer drivers are similar - they sit on the disk until you need to add
a printer. The system may have constructed a list of all of them, but
given observed behaviour (it takes a while to display that list) I doubt
it keeps any such list in "live" memory.
Hence deleting them will make no measurable difference to memory usage.
--
David Empson
dem...@actrix.gen.nz
Erik Richard Sørensen
isw wrote:
> Erik Richard Sørensen <NOS...@NOSPAM.dk> wrote:
>> When/if you 'strip' the installation this way, I guarantee that you will
>> get one of the fastest 500mhz 10.4.x G3 machines at all - even with only
>> 384mb of RAM!
>
> Now I'm curious: why does leaving all those extra languages and printer
> drivers off the disk make the machine go faster?
>
> Can I just go in and delete them at any time, or do I have to reinstall?
>
> I have a 400 MHz Pismo that could be more useful if it was a bit more
> speedy.
If I recall right you can just open the installer and reboot from the
disk and then remove all the not-needed printer and language software, -
else the best way is to make an 'archive and install' and then just
select the needed things in 'Custom install'.
All non-needed printerdrivers can just be deleted and so can all the
Asian fonts, if you don't need these. Note, that you must be admin to do
this.
cheers, Erik Richard
Erik Richard Sørensen
David Empson wrote:
No matter what you can say, I have done this and it worked just fine.
And for that matter the OP doesn't mention anything about HD size,
wheter it still is the original disk or not.
Cheers, Erik Richard
Warren Oates
Priam <pr...@notsosure.com> wrote:
> Linux. Jooby is laughign at you. It would take less than an hour to
> compile the OS X code for PowerPC but his message is: buy a new Mac, Moron!
Have you ever installed Linux on an older PPC Mac? Which Macs? What
Linux do you recommend for this?
--
Very old woody beets will never cook tender.
-- Fannie Farmer
Priam
> Priam<pr...@notsosure.com> writes:
>
>> On 01/03/2010 04:19 PM, abpp wrote:
>>
>>> What would be better to install in an old iBook G3/500mhz with 384 MB
>>> of RAM that I have for a 6 year old (to play DVDs and browse
>>> Disney.com and such): Mac OS 10.2.x or 10.3.x??
>>
>> Linux. Jooby is laughign at you. It would take less than an hour to
>> compile the OS X code for PowerPC but his message is: buy a new Mac,
>> Moron!
>
> While I agree with you that Apple is cutting off PPC-support a bit too
> soon
You call 6 months after the extended guarantee of the G5s is over "a bit
too soon"?
> this was to be expected.
If you used Linux, you wouldn't have to expect any such thing. The 2.4
kerel, which was introduced in 2001 is still available. Most versions of
Linux now compile for i686, which goes back to Pentium II in 1997.
> Apple has changed their CPU-platform
> twice now (Motorola 68k -> PPC -> Intel) now. And sooner or later you
> have to cut off support.
Of course, yeah, It's not like if you were paying a fortuen for those
Macs. Anyways, Apple doesn't offer support after 3 years (extended
support, the period when after the first 6 months, the computer is less
likely to experience problems.
> Leopard is still supported until 10.7
Where is it possible to get information about what this "support" means?
You can call the company and pay a fortune to get support on an outdated
OS whereas all Apple would have to do is recompile Snow Leopard's code
for the PowerPC architecture? If Linux can do this for its own code, why
can't Apple? It doesn't require adaptation to new material: it's all old
material.
> and if
> you're still using a PPC Mac then, there's still Linux. If there is
> still a Linux supporting PPC then.
There will certainly be a version of Linux for Power PCs in 10 years
from now, but I feel the developers are really too good. If I was them,
I would let Maccies figure out how badly they're being screwed by their
Holy Master.
Paul Sture
<9b5bbb94-9e99-444d...@upsg2000gro.googlegroups.com>,
abpp <ab...@mail.com> wrote:
> I know 10.3 is better than 10.2, and 10.4 better than 10.3, but this
> is an old (2001)
> iBook G3/500mhz with DVD and only 384 MB of RAM that will not be
> upgraded for
> some time. So, which one would give me the less sluggishness for this
> configuration:
> 10.2, 10.3, or 10.4???
I'd go for 10.4 but see if you can get more RAM as well.
I recently retired a 600 MHz G3 iBook which has 640 MB (the maximum for
that model) and it was definitely faster and more reliable with 10.4
than 10.3.
The internal disk failed long ago and I was running it on external Lacie
Firewire disks.
--
Paul Sture
JF Mezei
> Ok. I'll upgrade to 10.3 since I don't really think 10.4 will cut it
> with this little machine, and 10.2 seems too slow now.
10.4 is more efficient than 10.3. And you'll be able to run much more
software with 10.4 than with 10.3 because it is seen as a "last version"
and people making compiles will often target 10.4 for the PPC because it
supports G3s whereas 10.5 only supports G4/G5).
isw
Erik Richard S�rensen <NOS...@NOSPAM.dk> wrote:
> isw wrote:
> > Erik Richard S�rensen <NOS...@NOSPAM.dk> wrote:
> >> When/if you 'strip' the installation this way, I guarantee that you will
> >> get one of the fastest 500mhz 10.4.x G3 machines at all - even with only
> >> 384mb of RAM!
> >
> > Now I'm curious: why does leaving all those extra languages and printer
> > drivers off the disk make the machine go faster?
> >
> > Can I just go in and delete them at any time, or do I have to reinstall?
> >
> > I have a 400 MHz Pismo that could be more useful if it was a bit more
> > speedy.
>
> If I recall right you can just open the installer and reboot from the
> disk and then remove all the not-needed printer and language software, -
> else the best way is to make an 'archive and install' and then just
> select the needed things in 'Custom install'.
>
> All non-needed printerdrivers can just be deleted and so can all the
> Asian fonts, if you don't need these. Note, that you must be admin to do
> this.
OK, but *why* does that speed up the machine? It's just junk on the
disk, isn't it?
Isaac
Paul Sture
dem...@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) wrote:
Going back to the time when I was running off my iBook's internal disk
of 20 GB, deleting those files did speed up my backups.
And I suppose the weekly run of updatedb, but that was about it.
Faster and larger disks made it a non-issue.
--
Paul Sture
Geoffrey S. Mendelson
> Have you ever installed Linux on an older PPC Mac? Which Macs? What
> Linux do you recommend for this?
If it's a "new world" Mac, then either UBUNTU or YellowDog. UBUNTU is a
reduced system that is designed to replace Windows, it's very similar
and it's difficult to do things that are not part of "the package".
For the average end user, it's pretty good. It's no longer officially
supported on PPC Macs, but is supported by the "user community", which may
actually be better. You can download an ISO file to burn a CD from mirrors
all over the world.
For the more sophistocated user, YellowDog is a much "richer" system, which
includes some support if you buy it (instead of just downloading it).
Neither will really help the original poster of the question because IMHO
a 500mHz G3 computer is just not fast enough to fully enjoy the videos and
other flash animation of the Disney web site.
For most other things, email, general web browsing (without videos), word
processing, etc, it's perfectly fine.
I would run Tiger on it, because I think it would be better suited for the
hardware, but if you want something free (as in no price), go with UBUNTU
or YellowDog.
Note that if you want something free (as in GNU, i.e. open source), then
Tiger would be a better choice as just about everything you would want in
open source is available, except for parts of the operating system, which
99.999999% of the people using it will not ever look at anyway.
"Old World" Macs are more difficult to install Linux on, but I think his
is a "New World" computer.
Erik Richard Sørensen
isw wrote:
> Erik Richard Sørensen <NOS...@NOSPAM.dk> wrote:
>> isw wrote:
>>>> When/if you 'strip' the installation this way, I guarantee that you will
>>>> get one of the fastest 500mhz 10.4.x G3 machines at all - even with only
>>>> 384mb of RAM!
>>> Now I'm curious: why does leaving all those extra languages and printer
>>> drivers off the disk make the machine go faster?
>>>
>>> Can I just go in and delete them at any time, or do I have to reinstall?
>>>
>>> I have a 400 MHz Pismo that could be more useful if it was a bit more
>>> speedy.
>> If I recall right you can just open the installer and reboot from the
>> disk and then remove all the not-needed printer and language software, -
>> else the best way is to make an 'archive and install' and then just
>> select the needed things in 'Custom install'.
>>
>> All non-needed printerdrivers can just be deleted and so can all the
>> Asian fonts, if you don't need these. Note, that you must be admin to do
>> this.
>
> OK, but *why* does that speed up the machine? It's just junk on the
> disk, isn't it?
It will not affect common working processes like using text applications
or the like, but in startup process it will be faster. Also on a local
network it will be faster, 'cause it will be looking through -
especially the printer archives - for a connected printer.
On the internet it will be faster, if webpages are multilingual because
such pages will look for usable fonts on the system to be able to show
the correct content. Nowadays more webpages have one or more Asian
languages inline and wehn/if you connect to such sites, your fonts will
be active and slow down performance, even though you haven't switched to
that specific language. If you delete (or just disable) these fonts, you
will always force the webpage to not look for usable fonts on your system.
Deleting/stripping the languages will not give much increase in
performance, but a bit it will, but deleting/disabling never used fonts
- again I presume you don't use Asian fonts - these will both increase
space and give better performance.
Even on my MacPro QuadCore 2.66ghz I have disabled most of the Asian
fonts, 'cause more of my apps also contain Asian lproj folders
(localizations), and disabling most of these along with the fonts,
indeed increase both speed and performance.
You can also increase speed by only having very, very few fonts in the
system and let the rest be managed by a font manager. I have lots and
lots of fonts on the computer - apprx. 380.000, - but only 900 fonts
active with 1400 typ0efaces. For this management I use Linotype
Fontexplorer X - the free version and not the new Pro version, which now
is shareware. Once the font is registered by Fontexplorer, it is
'disabled' from the system and managed by FE and only called, when you
select to enable it either permanently or temporarely.
Fontexplorer X 1.2.3
http://www.versiontracker.com/dyn/moreinfo/macosx/27903
You can also increase application performance by disabling non-used
languages within the application. Find the application itself - fx.
Safari, take a 'get info' on it and down in the 'Get info' window, you
will se a list of languages, where up to apprx. 20 lanugages besides
English are enabled. If you only use English you can just remove the
checkmarks from all the other languages. This will automatically disable
those languages and put the localized lproj folders into a new folder
called 'Resources Disabled' and by this be de-activated from the
application. I use this on some heavy apps like Thotoshop CS2, MSWord
2008 and such real big apps - and hereto on a few apps with Danish
lproj, which are so badly translated that I bend my toes each time I see
it in Danish.:-)
You donot damage anything by disabling the unused languages inside the apps!
Priam
> Warren Oates wrote:
>
>> Have you ever installed Linux on an older PPC Mac? Which Macs? What
>> Linux do you recommend for this?
>
>
> If it's a "new world" Mac, then either UBUNTU or YellowDog. UBUNTU is a
> reduced system that is designed to replace Windows, it's very similar
> and it's difficult to do things that are not part of "the package".
The alternative you suggest is certainly valid, but I've never heard
that Ubuntu is a "reduced system" or about "the package". Many distros
may one day replace Windows and are no more complicated.
Ubuntu's user friendlyness is often hyped without reason. The fact that
you have only user passwords instead of root/users passwords doesn't
change much in real life. Material recognition is at least as good in
other main distributions. Of course, if you compare Ubuntu to Slackware,
Arch or LinuxFromScratch for user firendlyness, it's another story.
OTOH, news for computer security is not very good for the year to come.
According to McAfee:
"New operating systems, social networking sites, and the emergence of
the HTML 5 Web markup language will give hackers and malware designers
even more opportunities to ply their crooked trade in 2010, according to
security software vendor McAfee.
"In its "2010 Threat Predictions" report, McAfee (NYSE: MFE) researchers
said that Adobe's Acrobat Reader and Flash applications will surpass
Microsoft's Office applications as the code of choice for cyber
criminals next year."
Of course, McAfee is always alarmist: it's better for their business.
But there's much truth in what they say here and, though Firefox is
patched very fast whenever a security flaw is found and is far safer
than Internet Explorer, browsers are with streaming media, one of the
main concerns."
You'll certainly be safer with Ubuntu than with OS X, but why not also
try Fedora? Security Enhanced Linux (SELinux), which was developed with
the NSA, and is offered by default in Fedora, could prove to be an
advantage these days.
> For the average end user, it's pretty good. It's no longer officially
> supported on PPC Macs, but is supported by the "user community"
I couldn't find anything about this, though a search on site:ubuntu.com
"power pc" doesn't bring you to a PPC download page whereas a search on
fedora "power pc" offers the download page as the first link:
http://fedoraproject.org/en/get-fedora-ppc
> For the more sophistocated user, YellowDog is a much "richer" system
In what is it "richer"?
> which
> includes some support if you buy it (instead of just downloading it).
$60 for 6 months! You better need it. Otherwise it is also available
free for download.
> Neither will really help the original poster of the question because IMHO
> a 500mHz G3 computer is just not fast enough to fully enjoy the videos and
> other flash animation of the Disney web site.
If, by "fully enjoy" you mean "full screen", you're certainly right.
> I would run Tiger on it, because I think it would be better suited for the
> hardware, but if you want something free (as in no price), go with UBUNTU
> or YellowDog.
The main argument is not that it's free as in free beer, but free as in
freedom but, since the Apple tax is already paid, if Tiger is available,
it might be an alternative. The software offered won't be as new, but
might be lighter.
Geoffrey S. Mendelson
> The alternative you suggest is certainly valid, but I've never heard
> that Ubuntu is a "reduced system" or about "the package". Many distros
> may one day replace Windows and are no more complicated.
Obviously you have never used it. Ubuntu uses GNOME instead of KDE, which
makes it smaller, but provides less function. There is a KDE version of
UBUNTU or you can add it to the regular system, but then it becomes
bigger slower, etc.
As for "the package", UBUNTU has a way of doing things which is different than
any other distro, including DEBIAN on which it is based. Becuase of that
you are stuck without cetain features, which sometimes render things useless.
As examples, DVD decoding. That's a simple package install and is left off
for legal reasons, but on the other side are things that they just don't think
need to be installed, such as ssh tunneling for netatalk (secure apple
file sharing), which is needed for Leopard and up, and secure or authorized
email delivery with sendmail.
They grudgingly include sendmail, and a broken version of netatalk, but you
have to recompile them to get them to work.
Some things just don't exist, for example, when I wanted to install as simple
ASTERISK PBX, they have been "discussing" which version and how to implement
it for 4 years now.
There are Asterisk packages available, but everyone I spoke to said they were
so out of date, that they were useless.
Another thing is that for the last 4 years you can not connect to an UBUNTU
system via X-Windows from a Mac and use the keyboard. It's a problem
with GNOME and keyboard definitions. There have been work arounds, but
now they don't work. Yes I can use VNC, which I do, but it is not the
same thing.
None of this affects the new and simple user, you can with a short download
(1 CD image), install UBUNTU and be surfing the web, reading email, or
doing "office" type applications.
> Ubuntu's user friendlyness is often hyped without reason. The fact that
> you have only user passwords instead of root/users passwords doesn't
> change much in real life. Material recognition is at least as good in
> other main distributions. Of course, if you compare Ubuntu to Slackware,
> Arch or LinuxFromScratch for user firendlyness, it's another story.
>
I have not used Slackware since 1995, when I was given it on floppies and then
bought a CD-ROM with 4 different versions of Linux, and a couple of versions
of BSD on it.
>> Neither will really help the original poster of the question because IMHO
>> a 500mHz G3 computer is just not fast enough to fully enjoy the videos and
>> other flash animation of the Disney web site.
>
> If, by "fully enjoy" you mean "full screen", you're certainly right.
No I mean at all. Using a similar system (384k 667mHz G4) powerbook, I can't
watch any modern videos via a web browser. Since the Disney and similar
sites are all about flash videos, it makes it very frustrating.
BTW many of them will play if I download them first, close the web browser
and watch them in small screen mode with VLC. But that kind of defeats the
concept.
> The main argument is not that it's free as in free beer, but free as in
> freedom but, since the Apple tax is already paid, if Tiger is available,
> it might be an alternative. The software offered won't be as new, but
> might be lighter.
Yes.
Priam
> Priam wrote:
>> The alternative you suggest is certainly valid, but I've never heard
>> that Ubuntu is a "reduced system" or about "the package". Many distros
>> may one day replace Windows and are no more complicated.
>
> Obviously you have never used it. Ubuntu uses GNOME instead of KDE, which
> makes it smaller, but provides less function.
??? I've used both KDE and GNOME. I now use GNOME because I don't like
KDE 4. Can you tell me what "functions" KDE provides that GNOME doesn't.
> There is a KDE version of
> UBUNTU or you can add it to the regular system, but then it becomes
> bigger slower, etc.
???
> As for "the package", UBUNTU has a way of doing things which is different than
> any other distro, including DEBIAN on which it is based. Becuase of that
> you are stuck without cetain features, which sometimes render things useless.
Really?
> As examples, DVD decoding. That's a simple package install and is left off
> for legal reasons, but on the other side are things that they just don't think
> need to be installed, such as ssh tunneling for netatalk (secure apple
> file sharing), which is needed for Leopard and up, and secure or authorized
> email delivery with sendmail.
http://packages.ubuntu.com/karmic/netatalk
Maybe it's not provided for Macs, I hav eno idea. In such a case, I'd
suggest selling crappy Mac hardware and, for teh same price, getting a
decent PC.
> They grudgingly include sendmail, and a broken version of netatalk, but you
> have to recompile them to get them to work.
Really? It's supposed to be pretty much the same as Debian's
> Some things just don't exist, for example, when I wanted to install as simple
> ASTERISK PBX, they have been "discussing" which version and how to implement
> it for 4 years now.
I suggest you get a real PC. Everything that works on Debian will work
on Ubuntu. I unfortunately can't comment on how Macs work with Ubuntu.
Maybe what you say is pure bullshit, maybe it's not. But I find it very
surprizign. If what you sayy was true, how could Yellow Dog sell its
version for Mac at $60?
> None of this affects the new and simple user, you can with a short download
> (1 CD image), install UBUNTU and be surfing the web, reading email, or
> doing "office" type applications.
The OP is talking about a G3. What are you figuring he does?
>>> Neither will really help the original poster of the question because IMHO
>>> a 500mHz G3 computer is just not fast enough to fully enjoy the videos and
>>> other flash animation of the Disney web site.
>>
>> If, by "fully enjoy" you mean "full screen", you're certainly right.
>
>
> No I mean at all. Using a similar system (384k 667mHz G4) powerbook, I can't
> watch any modern videos via a web browser. Since the Disney and similar
> sites are all about flash videos, it makes it very frustrating.
I suppose you mean a 384MB, not k :) You're certainly not preaching in
favour of Mac hardware. I used to watch Windows media full screen with a
850MHz Celeron CPU and an old ATI 256 MB card. I could watch youtube
videos normal size.
Geoffrey S. Mendelson
> ??? I've used both KDE and GNOME. I now use GNOME because I don't like
> KDE 4. Can you tell me what "functions" KDE provides that GNOME doesn't.
There are lots of packages that run under KDE and not GNOME. You can look
them up if you are interested. You can install and run them under GNOME,
but the result is that the KDE libraries, etc are installed and running
on your system, although the user interface is GNOME.
My favorite is K3B, a CD/DVD burning untility, but there are lots of other ones.
>
>> There is a KDE version of
>> UBUNTU or you can add it to the regular system, but then it becomes
>> bigger slower, etc.
>
> ???
Bigger, as in more disk space and more RAM needed, slower because it's bigger
and has more overhead.
>> As for "the package", UBUNTU has a way of doing things which is different than
>> any other distro, including DEBIAN on which it is based. Becuase of that
>> you are stuck without cetain features, which sometimes render things useless.
>
> Really?
Really.
>
>> As examples, DVD decoding. That's a simple package install and is left off
>> for legal reasons, but on the other side are things that they just don't think
>> need to be installed, such as ssh tunneling for netatalk (secure apple
>> file sharing), which is needed for Leopard and up, and secure or authorized
>> email delivery with sendmail.
>
> http://packages.ubuntu.com/karmic/netatalk
Read it carefully. Try it with Leopard. Have fun. :-)
> Maybe it's not provided for Macs, I hav eno idea. In such a case, I'd
> suggest selling crappy Mac hardware and, for teh same price, getting a
> decent PC.
Irrelevant, the discussion is what to do with an already owned Mac.
>> They grudgingly include sendmail, and a broken version of netatalk, but you
>> have to recompile them to get them to work.
>
> Really? It's supposed to be pretty much the same as Debian's
That's the difference between UBUNU and Debian. The UBUNTU packages are
based upon Debian, but the configuration options are different.
>
> I suggest you get a real PC. Everything that works on Debian will work
> on Ubuntu. I unfortunately can't comment on how Macs work with Ubuntu.
> Maybe what you say is pure bullshit, maybe it's not. But I find it very
> surprizign. If what you sayy was true, how could Yellow Dog sell its
> version for Mac at $60?
It's a version of RedHat, based upon KDE and not with the requirements
of UBUNTU. UBUNTU as a group, shuns programs that are not GPL licensed,
except when they have to. For example OpenOffice.Org. If they did not
include it, no one would use their system.
YellowDog sells their distro to a different market. They sell it to people
who are willing to pay for support. They also do a PS/3 distro which if
you live in a place they are not taxed to death, gives you one heck of
system for very little money.
> The OP is talking about a G3. What are you figuring he does?
Watch DVD's and use the Disney.com website to be specific. His six year
old son is not interested in email, office apps, or reading the various
political sites that proliferate the web.
> I suppose you mean a 384MB, not k :) You're certainly not preaching in
> favour of Mac hardware. I used to watch Windows media full screen with a
> 850MHz Celeron CPU and an old ATI 256 MB card. I could watch youtube
> videos normal size.
I expect that a similar Mac would be fine. I'm not preaching at all, I
was just answering a question about what would be an appropriate operating
system for the specific hardware and usage.
This is comp.sys.mac.system after all, not comp.sys.mac.advocacy, or
comp.sys.mac.haters.
I answered the Linux question because someone whom I respect asked it.
It's a legitimate question, I just don't think it's going to answer the
needs of the child in the first place. Since this is a worldwide group
archived "forever", it's possible someone else may read this later and
it's IMHO much better to answer the question with a proper answer and
not just "no, it won't do the job either".
BTW, I doubt that you would be able to decode H.264 or other similarly
compressed YouTube videos, especially the "hi-def" ones that are
starting to take over the site on that celeron.
Priam
> Priam wrote:
>
>> ??? I've used both KDE and GNOME. I now use GNOME because I don't like
>> KDE 4. Can you tell me what "functions" KDE provides that GNOME doesn't.
>
> There are lots of packages that run under KDE and not GNOME. You can look
> them up if you are interested.
:) :) :)
You can install and run them under GNOME,
> but the result is that the KDE libraries, etc are installed and running
> on your system, although the user interface is GNOME.
>
> My favorite is K3B, a CD/DVD burning untility, but there are lots of other ones.
So, you complain that GNOME, which uses the GTK+ tookit, cannot run KDE
exclusive applications such as K3B? Does KDE, which uses the QT toolkit,
run Brasero, also a DVD burning utility, but for GNOME?
So why do you say that GNOME misses anything? If you want to run the
GIMP with KDE, you'll have to install the GTK+ libraries, that's it,
that's all. It will be done automatically when you install the GIMP.
Sorry, man. You really don't have the slightest hint on what you're
talking about.
Warren Oates
Priam <pr...@notsosure.com> wrote:
> So why do you say that GNOME misses anything? If you want to run the
> GIMP with KDE, you'll have to install the GTK+ libraries, that's it,
> that's all. It will be done automatically when you install the GIMP.
>
> Sorry, man. You really don't have the slightest hint on what you're
> talking about.
You can even get Gimp to compile in OS X, if you very carefully install
the GTK+ libraries. I mean OS X, not X running on OS X.
Priam
> In article<hi2c09$unp$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> Priam<pr...@notsosure.com> wrote:
>
>> So why do you say that GNOME misses anything? If you want to run the
>> GIMP with KDE, you'll have to install the GTK+ libraries, that's it,
>> that's all. It will be done automatically when you install the GIMP.
>>
>> Sorry, man. You really don't have the slightest hint on what you're
>> talking about.
>
> You can even get Gimp to compile in OS X, if you very carefully install
> the GTK+ libraries. I mean OS X, not X running on OS X.
Honestly, I have no idea but, according to Geoffrey, if you must add a
library, it's because OS X is incomplete :)
Geoffrey S. Mendelson
> Honestly, I have no idea but, according to Geoffrey, if you must add a
> library, it's because OS X is incomplete :)
I've figured it out. You're just a troll. You have no idea of what I was
saying or who said what.
Paul Sture
"Geoffrey S. Mendelson" <g...@cable.mendelson.com> wrote:
> No I mean at all. Using a similar system (384k 667mHz G4) powerbook, I can't
> watch any modern videos via a web browser. Since the Disney and similar
> sites are all about flash videos, it makes it very frustrating.
>
> BTW many of them will play if I download them first, close the web browser
> and watch them in small screen mode with VLC. But that kind of defeats the
> concept.
With my iBook 600 MHz G3 with 640 MB RAM, I could happily watch most
Youtube stuff until a couple of years or so ago, but in the last 18
months the experience just got worse and worse. Some more recent videos
won't play satisfactorily even when downloaded first.
--
Paul Sture
Priam
> Priam wrote:
>> Honestly, I have no idea but, according to Geoffrey, if you must add a
>> library, it's because OS X is incomplete :)
>
> I've figured it out. You're just a troll.
Of course, I'm a troll! So is Warren Oates. We're all trolls here,
except you. But I suppose you figured that out too.
Buzz off Moron!
Priam
> In article<slrnhk9f4...@cable.mendelson.com>,
>>> Honestly, I have no idea but, according to Geoffrey, if you must add a
>>> library, it's because OS X is incomplete :)
>>
>> I've figured it out. You're just a troll.
>
Here comes Double Decker Diaper (3D) Schneider to the rescue of nonsense
sputters!
David Empson
Erik Richard S�rensen <NOS...@NOSPAM.dk> wrote:
> David Empson wrote:
If so, you appear to be the only one. (Hm, this sounds oddly familiar.)
After doing several Internet searches, I can't find a single report of
anyone successfully installing a drive larger than 120 GB in any iBook
G3. Just lots of other comments about the limit being 128 GB for all
iBook G3s.
Same goes for the Pismo and early PowerBook G4s. They can't use internal
hard drives larger than 128 GB.
Other World Computing's web site doesn't list any hard drive upgrades
for iBook G3s, presumably because they can no longer source drives
smaller than 128 GB. They list several options for iBook G4s (all 160 GB
or larger).
Just to be on the safe side, I e-mailed them and they confirmed it:
there is no iBook G3 model which can support a drive larger than 128 GB.
It will only have access to the first 128 GB.
I'm inclined to trust OWC rather more than your recollection.
> And for that matter the OP doesn't mention anything about HD size,
> wheter it still is the original disk or not.
This sub-thread diverged somewhat from the original post due to JF
Mezei's comment on a hard drive which you replied to in detail, so the
OP's hard drive isn't relevant.
--
David Empson
dem...@actrix.gen.nz