> The improvement is more tangible on supported machines as the OS is > optimized for those, but I ran 10.2 on a 7300/G3/300 with 504MB of RAM > and Rage128 a while ago and it was slow as hell. I run the same RAM , > CPU and Rage128 card in my 9600 and it's much faster, apart from the > GUI which is laggy because of all the jazzy 10.3 effects.
I'd like to see a straight up comparison. I used to assume the Powersurge motherboards were all pretty much comparable, but I've seen several comments that the later models including the 9600 had some important improvements. I'm running 10.2 on a 7500/G3/400 with 512M and on a Beige G3/266 with 768M and each has areas they're better at, and I wouldn't call either "slow as hell" except for when I want to run DivX video or do something else that challenges my processors or memory bandwidth... things I wouldn't expect 10.3 to do much for... which is why I'd like to know more before buying stuff and jumping in. -- Unsupported OS X is sponsored by <http://lowendmac.com/> Support Low End Mac <http://lowendmac.com/lists/support.html> Unsupported OS X list info <http://lowendmac.com/lists/unsupported.html> --> 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/unsupportedosx%40mail.maclaunch.com/> Using a Mac? Free email & more at Applelinks! http://www.applelinks.com
