on 11/23/02 6:42 AM, Charles Martin at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> From: "JAS" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> OS9.2 is slower than 8.6! >> > > I strongly disagree with this. In my experience (which amounts to at > least dozens if not a couple hundred such installations by now), the > exact opposite is true. > > On a system with sufficient RAM (128MB or better), 9.2 is noticeably > faster and MUCH more stable. Perhaps in low-memory situations 8.6 would > be a better choice, but with RAM prices the way they are today ... >
Yes, in upgrading the RAM for OS 10.1.5 (now at 192 MB), OS 9.2.2 got much zippier, especially now that I can run it without Virtual Memory. But when I first upgraded to 9.2.2, it was significantly slower with only 96 MB of RAM (what it came with). Add some more RAM, and you will see a difference. Gerry Blueberry iMac 333, 192 MB RAM, now running 10.1.5. -- The iMac List is sponsored by <http://lowendmac.com/> and... Small Dog Electronics http://www.smalldog.com | Refurbished Drives | - Epson Stylus Color 580 Printers - new at $69 | & CDRWs on Sale! | Support Low End Mac <http://lowendmac.com/lists/support.html> iMac List info: <http://lowendmac.com/imac/list.shtml> --> AOL users, remove "mailto:"; Send list messages to: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To unsubscribe, email: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For digest mode, email: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subscription questions: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Archive: <http://www.mail-archive.com/imac-list%40mail.maclaunch.com/> --------------------------------------------------------------- >The Think Different Store http://www.ThinkDifferentStore.com ---------------------------------------------------------------
