10.1 performance on Pismo 500

M

MacNeato

Registered
Hi,

Quick question. Will I see any significant improvement with 10.1 if I have more than 640mg of RAM in my Pismo 500? Or will it depend on what app I run? The only scenario where I will need more resource (CPU and RAM) is when I run VPC w/ win2k and the X dev tools...

Thanks!!

Frank
 
640MB RAM++??? You'll be MORE than fine. I'm running it on a PB FireWire G3 400mhz with 128mb RAM, and OS X 10.1 works awesome. If you had problems with OS X 10.0, OS X 10.1 does have many speed enhancements.
 
Yup - I concur with Doug. My Pismo 400 196MB is running like a champ with X. I mean it would depend on what you were doing, i.e. I wouldn't recommend running Maya on this config. Doing your standard stuff and some web dev and Photoshop in Classic - no problem. VPC - Carbon should work out pretty good I would think when the final ships.

Classic does start up fairly slow but this is most likely due to my 9.2 install having all the extensions enabled. Everything else seems the same/close to 9.2 performance.

One caveat, The Sims House Party Carbon version runs faster in X than the OS9 version! :D

-s'fit
 
I have a Pismo 500 w/ 384 Megs of RAM. I reinitilaized my drive (used to have two partitions - one for 9 and one for X; now I'm only using one for both). I did clean installations of 9.1, then 9.2.1, then 10.0, then 10.1 upgrade and it runs extremely well. Very responsive in all aspects of use. Classic boots much faster (because I don't have lots of my old extensions loading).

I like my Pismo better than the current TiBook because Airport reception is SOOO much better! I can roam the two floors of our office and never miss an email. Awesome!

10.1 will be the _ONLY_ OS for web development/hosting when Adobe, Macromedia and MS release their apps in the next few months. It will REALLY make Linux look lousy. Exciting time to be a Mac user.
 
I really have to disagree. As soon as you really start working with Mac OS X 10.1, you start having many applications open. *Because* the operating system multitasks well and organizes its memory well, there is no need to quit a Carbon or Cocoa application like there was in OS 9. It's much faster to just keep it in the background and let OS X handle it than to quit the app and later start it again when it's needed. Let's make an example...

I'm a webdesigner. And I work on OS X as my primary operating system since 10.0.3. I always have Internet Explorer and OmniWeb open. I never restart them (unless they crash, of course, which they rarely do). Then I have Photoshop (Classic) opened all the time, too, because I often switch back to graphical work when I've done some coding in Terminal or BBEdit. And of course I have Stickies open for my notes, I have Mail open all the time, I have Transmit (FTP) open and I have Fire open. All of them. All the time. Now if you have 128 or 256 megs of RAM, the system (10.0) starts to show you the rainbow cursor quite more often than normal. 10.1 is a bit better here, but not really. As soon as you hit the real memory line, OS X starts to stutter. I just upgraded my TiBook from 384 to 512 (replacing a 128 with another 256 brick), and I can work faster now. OS X doesn't need more RAM, all of your applications will, though. This will get better again when I don't need Classic any more, i.e. when Photoshop is carbonated.

Plainly put: Buy as much RAM as you can put into your machine. It's always gonna be a speed bump. Be it OS 9 or 10.
 
I'd agree with the RAM amount.

I guess I'm just use to the way it used to be (pre-X) when it comes to running apps...

ONE AT A TIME! :D

Maybe Fireworks and Dreamweaver I'll have open at the same time but that's it. Everything else - well...old habits are hard to break!

-s'fit
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top