Hi, I wanted to share the results of installing Mac OS X on an 8600/300 with 1,024 MB RAM and all else stock. They were kind of surprising.
1. Mac OS 10.0.3 install took 25 minutes 2. Mac OS 10.0.3 on the 8600 was only slightly slower vs. Mac OS 10.1 on an iBook 2 w/ 384 MB RAM 3. The Mac OS 10.1 update took 45 minutes 4. Now performance vs. iBook 2 is is virtually the same except the 8600 takes .5 - 1.5 second longer for app launches Now here I scratched my head-- does 640 MB RAM *really* negate the faster bus, faster processor, faster RAM, etc. etc. the iBook 2 has? Because basically, that RAM was the only thing the 8600 had over the iBook 2. Both systems were sitting with the Finder and Clock open when I was comparing them, the only difference being the 8600's 700+ MB RAM free vs. the iBook 2's 160+ MB. What benchmarks can I run to get a much clearer picture? Quite frankly, I'm wondering if the 2001 iBook is just now reaching performance a much more antiquated system has had since 1997. I'm close to yanking RAM from the 8600 to match the iBook's to do a better comparison. Any ideas or similar experiences? Of course nothing's wrong with either system, but the (lack of a) performance gap seems to go against common Mac logic. -- PCI-PowerMacs is sponsored by <http://lowendmac.com/> and... Small Dog Electronics http://www.smalldog.com | Refurbished Drives | -- Sonnet & PowerLogix Upgrades - start at $169 | & CDRWs on Sale! | Support Low End Mac <http://lowendmac.com/lists/support.html> PCI-PowerMacs list info: <http://lowendmac.com/lists/pci-powermacs.shtml> 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/pci-powermacs%40mail.maclaunch.com/> Using a Macintosh? Get free email and more at Applelinks! <http://www.applelinks.com>
