OSNews

I can't run WinXP on a 1998 PC even with the RAM maxed out...

I have a 1997 Dell with 512mb of memory on it that until I replaced it with a laptop a year ago ran XP. And if my memory of my 2002 vintage imac running 10.2 is correct, with about the same performance as I'd get on a 99 vintage imac running 10.2

I have a 1997 Dell with 512mb of memory on it that until I replaced it with a laptop a year ago ran XP

Now thats really great! Windows ME wouldn't install on anything less than 150 Mhz so I can imagine that WinXP would be lots of fun to use...

Come on! I can use Ubuntu on a 100Mhz computer and I can use OSX on a 233Mhz computer. I mean, I can REALLY use them. They are quite nice to work on. Don't come and tell me you can work on WinXP running in a 1997 computer... you should be able to work on Notepad only... and even then...

And if my memory of my 2002 vintage imac running 10.2 is correct

Try 10.3 and you will be amazed. Not kidding. Huge difference.

Edited 2006-06-10 01:07

10.1 and 10.2 are not supported because actually 10.3 runs faster on legacy hardware like the 233MHz iMac. Newer versions of Mac OS X are usually a lot faster, it gets better and better. Try comparing Jaguar and Panther on an old Mac.

lol that sounds like a nice bit of marketing hyperboil.

The bottom line is that apple dumps OS support far faster than MS and thats a fact. People want to compare the two ? Call up apple and ask for a fix for OS9 sometime and see what they say. Its no comparison.

But thats not the point, the point is I can run Mac OS X 10.3 (released in 2003) on an iMac G3 (released in 1998) with full support. Or I can run many Linux distros like Ubuntu, again with total support.

Same thing with Windows XP. What hardware released in 1998 does XP not support? Hell all the drivers you'll likely need are even on the CD.

I can't run WinXP on a 1998 PC even with the RAM maxed out...

I highly doubt you have tried. I've run both operating systems and hands down Windows XP requires far less resources then OS X (ANY version).

ohh by the way, you can still run OS9 on every PowerPC version of Mac OS X... for free!

Thats neat. I can run Windows 9X on hardware purchased today but whats the point ?

The bottom line is that apple dumps OS support far faster than MS and thats a fact.

Because the most recent versions of OSX are actually faster on legacy hardware. Thats a fact. Why would I run 10.2 if 10.3 is faster?

Same thing with Windows XP. What hardware released in 1998 does XP not support? Hell all the drivers you'll likely need are even on the CD

You can barelly use it. That is the point. Windows XP on a Pentium 266Mhz ? Lets get real...

I can't run WinXP on a 1998 PC even with the RAM maxed out...

I tried it, even using nLite. It is not fun at all... Ubuntu runs quite faster.

hands down Windows XP requires far less resources then OS X (ANY version)

With the antivirus, antispyware and firewall software enabled? I'm not using any of these in Linux and OSX.

Thats neat. I can run Windows 9X on hardware purchased today but whats the point ?

The point is it would be nice to run old DOS stuff by having Win98 support inside WinXP. I can run OS9 apps inside OSX. I can run virtually any app made since 1997. The same can't be said about Windows.

10.1 and 10.2 are not supported because actually 10.3 runs faster on legacy hardware like the 233MHz iMac. Newer versions of Mac OS X are usually a lot faster, it gets better and better. Try comparing Jaguar and Panther on an old Mac.

Wrong case here set by the original parent. It is not about supporting on older hardware. Much more expensive is when your software made for 10.0,1,2 doesn't work under 10.3 or 4.

I know at least two people burned as this. (expensive proprietary) Software maker never made sp available in any other way but buying newer version. For those two world stoped spining, they can't move on and there's practicaly no support for 10.2. Don't ask me which software, I only know it is HW related and dirvers crash on newer OS, but unfortunatelly can't remember (although mac software is full of cases like this one).

I can't run WinXP on a 1998 PC even with the RAM maxed out...

Well, that is a lie. In 98 PC was up to 350MHz and RAM was up to either 512MB or 1GB, don't remember. XP on maxed computer like that runs just as OSX 10.3 on G3. It crawls, but it works. But problem with 10.4 is that Spotlight is the main consumer of RAM and disk. So, no you can't run even decently on that machine. But if you'll try to say you can, well then it is time to stop comparing speed of your computer to newer pocket calculators.

For your information, iMac from may.98 was able to have max 384MB of RAM, and all I can say to you is: I can't run 10.4 on 512MB macMini with near to decent speed. And the largest reason is lack of RAM. CPU 233MHz

Second problem is VRAM, where graphic chip on this computer is Rage IIc with 2MB of RAM, but you could extra expand that with another 4MB. Large portion of OSX falls on GPU with 3D, or in your case on your CPU, because Rage IIc practicaly has no 3D. CPU 233MHz

October.98 version just differs on Rage Pro (6MB) and still only 384MB max. Again without 3D and too little of RAM.

Now lets just skip 'till DV/400 on october.99.
Max RAM 384MB, Graphic card ATI Rage 128 8MB, 400MHz

First iMac that could run (run at even slowest normal acceptable speed, not crawl) 10.4 when maxed out is iMac DV+ expandable up to 1024MB, 500MHz CPU, while still having sucky Rage 128 Pro with 8MB of RAM.

ohh by the way, you can still run OS9 on every PowerPC version of Mac OS X... for free!

Really, it is just that almost no software works as it should (under 10.0-10.2 runing those apps was so bad I didn't even tried anymore, but I doubt it has got any better.). The only application which hasn't suffered much from this was Photoshop, because I didn't use fonts and such things under it, or better said my job wasn't depending on them. Installing fonts under Classic and X was a mess, and so were other issues where OS9 often locked CD and such.


In the long run, I'm no MS fan. But I have to admit support for Win98 was much longer than anyone could expect (and it is HW vendors who stoped supporting it first). I for one am all for newer versions, after SP3 if this is MS related product.

Edited 2006-06-10 01:29

Yes, I know how much RAM my iMac has, I'm not lying to you. I'm not trolling.

I'm running 10.3 on an iMac 233MHz with 384 of RAM and an 80 GB HD. I can run Word, Excel, Keynote, Snak, Firefox, Mail, Powerpoint, Pages, Messenger, etc. I can have 4 apps openned at the same time. It works really great. So... I'm running a recent, stable and secure OS on my old Mac.

I was running Win98 on my P100 but now comes all these security and bug reports that won't be fixe. What to do? WinXP will not run here. Ubuntu does run. So does Xubuntu. It runs slow but allows me to use the Internet far safer than Win98. I'm running a recent, stable and secure OS on my old PC.

Who lost? Microsoft. I'm not buying Windows again, but will surelly buy an Intel Mac just to be able to boot OSX and Ubuntu.

So, am I a troll just because I learned to like OSX and Linux better than of Windows? Please...

Edited 2006-06-10 01:57

So basically if I bought a Mac that came with OSX 10.0-10.2 I have to pay Apple $100 if I want to continue getting security updates.

In what way is that in any way better than what microsoft is doing?

In what way is that in any way better than what microsoft is doing?

5 * $100 = $500 (5 Mac version *upgrades*)

1 * $500 = $500 (stays forever XP prof,only gets older)

So i would rather prefer to buy yearly upgrades (new features and other improvements) instead of waiting 5++ years on something god knows what is is eventually.

I can run XP on a system from 98 no problem, anything over 1 350 will run it just fine, 512M of ram makes a fine websurfing and document editing machine