2400c: OS 8.6 or 9.x?

[Scott's Lists]

Here's my experience,

I ran 9.1 on the stock 180 MHz processor for about a year and was very 
satisfied.
For a comparison, at the same time I had a PowerMac 6100 with a 210 MHz 
G3 upgrade card in it. On that machine, 9.1 was very pokey; I went back 
to 8.6. So, I think have an idea of when 9.1 is too much.

This summer I put a G3 card in my 2400c. The difference was noticeable, 
but not particularly dramatic. I'd have few qualms about going back to 
the stock 180 with 9.1 if I had to.

I think the bus speed on the 2400 must be just enough to give what 9.1 
needs.

That's my € 0.0161184.

Scott





> Message-Id: <955E760A-358A-11D8-A882-000393C80B76 at earthlink.net>
> From: Robert Friede <rlf9 at earthlink.net>
> Subject: [Duo2400] 2400c: OS 8.6 or 9.x?
> Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2003 15:57:13 -0500
>
> For years I've been happy using 8.6 plus SpeedDoubler in my Comet/G3
> with 112MB RAM, but I'm curious about how fast it is in real-world use
> vs 9.1 or 9.2 without SpeedDoubler. The Comet stays at home on my desk
> and connects to the internet via my Airport network through a WaveLAN
> Silver card, but has difficulty file-sharing with the OS X computers in
> the house (that is, I have difficulty hooking it up correctly).
>
> In general, if I won't take a speed hit by moving to 9.x, I'd like to
> move ahead. Please, what's your experience and your advice? Thx.
>
> Bob F
>
>