RapidWeaver Forums

seyDoggy - 02 July 2009 08:50 PM

I even have Leopard running on a lime green 222 GHz G3 tray load iMac with 512 MB ram

Adam - of course it’s going to run fine on a 222 GHz G3!

Phil

Phil Warrender - 02 July 2009 10:06 PM

seyDoggy - 02 July 2009 08:50 PM

I even have Leopard running on a lime green 222 GHz G3 tray load iMac with 512 MB ram

Adam - of course it’s going to run fine on a 222 GHz G3!

Phil

, yes, sorry MHz was what it should read.

seyDoggy - 02 July 2009 08:50 PM

my wife has been running Leopard on her single core, 1.2 GHz G4 Power Mac with 512 MB ram for nearly 2 years now… without issue.

Yes, sorry.  I have now corrected my previous statement to read:

CrisBCT - 02 July 2009 06:37 PM

Despite all the posts to the contrary, I suspect that most people, including Rapid Weaver themselves, actually realize that an 867 Mhz G4 or lower is not really viable with Leopard for normal, non-computationally intensive, production work [whole sentence now edited to be far more precise - thanks, SeyDoggy! ]

So it now far more accurately reflects my real-life experience!

I even have Leopard running on a lime green 222 MHz [EDITED] G3 tray load iMac with 512 MB ram (yes it can be done if your geeky enough). I certainly wouldn’t do “production” work on it but it surfs the internet well enough.

So, in short, I find this statement to be highly inaccurate. I am coming from a position of someone who knows first hand what the limits of Leopard installs are.

Yet the fact that a geek with over 3,000 RW forum posts knows how to make Leopard perform miracles in certain circumstances doesn’t in any way invalidate my experience which demonstrated the exact opposite.

Leopard did run on my machine - I would have hoped that was obvious.  The issue was whether it could to do my work with a reasonable response time. And it didn’t - which is why I reverted to Tiger. 

A clean install and then the work to get everything working again is definitely beyond me - I am not a geek like seyDoggy.  So to imply that if I were to become one I could also make my G4 perform miracles just completely misses the point.  I have neither the inclination nor the time, and my regular work, which indeed is ‘non computationally intensive’ proved not possible with just 512 MB ram, nor was it viable in Leopard on my 867 Mhz G4 machine.

SeyDoggy doesn’t seem to have yet come to the realisation that different people can have very different experiences with a similar machine.  Rather than denigrating my experience as ‘highly inaccurate’ this just means that his circumstances, not to mention his geekiness, are very different.  I’m somewhat surprised that this doesn’t seem to be obvious.

Up till now, I have been under the impression that both Mac computers, as well as RapidWeaver, are sold as useable by real people to do real work… Yet I’ve been using a Mac for some twenty plus years, have I been misled all this while?

Warm regards,
Cris
Friday, 2009/07/03

CrisBCT - 03 July 2009 04:02 PM

have I been misled all this while?

Hi Cris,
No you haven’t been misled but you are truly missing the point.

Clean Install

While Adam is certainly a geek, that geekyness was only exhibited by running Leopard on a G3.
If you have a backup system of any kind then doing a clean install and then using migration assistant to repopulate your hard drive is not geeky and will be easy for someone with your Mac background.

I am running Leopard with no problems on a G4, G5 and intel.

Very Best,
Phil

CrisBCT - 03 July 2009 04:02 PM

Rather than denigrating my experience as ‘highly inaccurate’ this just means that his circumstances, not to mention his geekiness, are very different.  I’m somewhat surprised that this doesn’t seem to be obvious.

I wasn’t denigrating your experience, was merely pointing out the inaccuracies of your broad and blanketing statement:

CrisBCT - 02 July 2009 06:37 PM

...I suspect that most people, including Rapid Weaver themselves, actually know that a G4 is not viable for Leopard

And since it’s my wife’s computer, and since it was her that did the install (and she is not a geek) then clearly this is not a process reserved for geeks alone. Pop in the disk and follow the instructions.

I’m not trying to be difficult I am just want to clarify that Leopard does run on G4’s (even G3’s), and therefor RapidWeaver 4.x runs on G4’s as well.

Anywhooo… I’ve tried to help (and failed) and I’ve said all I can on the matter so I am checking out on this thread.

Paix

I count 533 words in this short article on doing a clean Leopard install:

http://www.tuaw.com/2007/10/26/leopard-how-to-clean-install/

You hardly need to be a “geek” to do a clean install. The key is making sure you have a good backup of all your critical files before you do so. If you have Time Machine, you can do it with that. I have a bootable clone of my hard drive I keep up to date with SuperDuper, as well as online backups of my critical files using Jungle Disk.

You seem to want Realmac to make some accomodations in their software for resource thin machines ... realistically, we all know that isn’t going to happen. Or you’re looking for all of us to admit you’re right and we’re somehow wrong. If you’re looking for acknowledgement that RW runs slower on an 867GHz machine, well, yeah, that’s obvious. You’re saying that RW is too slow for you on your machine ... one can’t argue with a subjective perception. If it’s too slow for you, it’s too slow for you. But I’m not sure beyond that acknowledgement what you’re looking for in this thread; I don’t think Realmac is going to “admit” this is evidence that their product is fatally flawed and that there’s a problem here they need to address, and I don’t think those who are running RW on older machines are going to say their perception that it’s not too slow on their machines is incorrect based on your perception. Or that the simple process of doing a clean install is beyond anyone who isn’t a “geek”. Viability is based on one’s expectations. I think this is what we call an impasse.

If you’re not happy with RW’s performance on your machine, there are other options. You might want to try out the competition then and see if you get better performance on your machine: Sandvox, Freeway Pro, Flux 2 are the major contenders. Each comes with a learning curve, but if you’re not ready to upgrade, it might be easier to bite the bullet rather than moving to a higher-performing machine or continuing to be unhappy.

Vasily

seyDoggy - 03 July 2009 04:51 PM

...........  I’ve said all I can on the matter so I am checking out on this thread.

Paix

I suspect you are amongst the wisest here! Although I’ve not contributed to this thread previously, I’m tired of Whine-0-Palooza 2009 and am unsubscribing from this thread now

Brian