Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.sys.mac.system > #74531 > unrolled thread

?Best Upgrade System for Old iMac 8,1 w/10.5?

Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.mac.system

Contents

  ?Best Upgrade System for Old iMac 8,1 w/10.5? Fred Moore <fmoore@gcfn.org> - 2015-04-30 14:14 -0400
    Re: ?Best Upgrade System for Old iMac 8,1 w/10.5? Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2015-04-30 14:44 -0400
      Re: ?Best Upgrade System for Old iMac 8,1 w/10.5? Fred Moore <fmoore@gcfn.org> - 2015-05-01 12:19 -0400
        Re: ?Best Upgrade System for Old iMac 8,1 w/10.5? Warren Oates <Warren.Oates@gmail.com> - 2015-05-01 12:35 -0400
    Re: ?Best Upgrade System for Old iMac 8,1 w/10.5? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-05-01 05:47 +0000
      Re: ?Best Upgrade System for Old iMac 8,1 w/10.5? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-05-01 02:22 -0400
        Re: ?Best Upgrade System for Old iMac 8,1 w/10.5? Fred Moore <fmoore@gcfn.org> - 2015-05-01 12:15 -0400
          Re: ?Best Upgrade System for Old iMac 8,1 w/10.5? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-05-01 12:39 -0400
            Re: ?Best Upgrade System for Old iMac 8,1 w/10.5? Fred Moore <fmoore@gcfn.org> - 2015-05-01 13:33 -0400
              Re: ?Best Upgrade System for Old iMac 8,1 w/10.5? Ant <ant@zimage.comANT> - 2015-05-02 05:34 -0700
                Re: ?Best Upgrade System for Old iMac 8,1 w/10.5? Fred Moore <fmoore@gcfn.org> - 2015-05-02 14:32 -0400
          Re: ?Best Upgrade System for Old iMac 8,1 w/10.5? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-05-01 23:26 +0000
      Re: ?Best Upgrade System for Old iMac 8,1 w/10.5? Fred Moore <fmoore@gcfn.org> - 2015-05-01 12:12 -0400
        Re: ?Best Upgrade System for Old iMac 8,1 w/10.5? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-05-01 23:28 +0000
          Re: ?Best Upgrade System for Old iMac 8,1 w/10.5? dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2015-05-02 11:55 +1200
            Re: ?Best Upgrade System for Old iMac 8,1 w/10.5? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-05-02 16:40 +0000
              Re: ?Best Upgrade System for Old iMac 8,1 w/10.5? dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2015-05-03 16:20 +1200
                Re: ?Best Upgrade System for Old iMac 8,1 w/10.5? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-05-03 20:35 +0000
          Re: ?Best Upgrade System for Old iMac 8,1 w/10.5? Fred Moore <fmoore@gcfn.org> - 2015-05-02 12:30 -0400
            Re: ?Best Upgrade System for Old iMac 8,1 w/10.5? Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2015-05-02 15:19 -0400
              Re: ?Best Upgrade System for Old iMac 8,1 w/10.5? Fred Moore <fmoore@gcfn.org> - 2015-05-02 16:30 -0400
                Re: ?Best Upgrade System for Old iMac 8,1 w/10.5? Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2015-05-02 17:49 -0400
              Re: ?Best Upgrade System for Old iMac 8,1 w/10.5? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-05-02 22:37 +0000
                Re: ?Best Upgrade System for Old iMac 8,1 w/10.5? Fred Moore <fmoore@gcfn.org> - 2015-05-02 19:47 -0400
                Re: ?Best Upgrade System for Old iMac 8,1 w/10.5? Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2015-05-03 07:43 -0400
                  Re: ?Best Upgrade System for Old iMac 8,1 w/10.5? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-05-03 20:36 +0000
                    Re: ?Best Upgrade System for Old iMac 8,1 w/10.5? Fred Moore <fmoore@gcfn.org> - 2015-05-04 11:27 -0400
                      Re: ?Best Upgrade System for Old iMac 8,1 w/10.5? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-05-05 03:25 +0000
                        Re: ?Best Upgrade System for Old iMac 8,1 w/10.5? Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2015-05-05 07:28 -0400
                          Re: ?Best Upgrade System for Old iMac 8,1 w/10.5? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-05-05 14:40 +0000
                            Re: ?Best Upgrade System for Old iMac 8,1 w/10.5? Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2015-05-05 11:20 -0400
                              Re: ?Best Upgrade System for Old iMac 8,1 w/10.5? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-05-05 19:53 +0000
                                Re: ?Best Upgrade System for Old iMac 8,1 w/10.5? Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2015-05-05 16:01 -0400
                                  Re: ?Best Upgrade System for Old iMac 8,1 w/10.5? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-05-06 01:52 +0000
                Re: ?Best Upgrade System for Old iMac 8,1 w/10.5? kevin.shirley1966@gmail.com (Kevin Shirley) - 2015-05-04 10:24 +0100
              Re: ?Best Upgrade System for Old iMac 8,1 w/10.5? Fred Moore <fmoore@gcfn.org> - 2015-05-04 12:09 -0400
    Re: ?Best Upgrade System for Old iMac 8,1 w/10.5? Andreas Rutishauser <andreas@macandreas.ch> - 2015-05-01 09:17 +0200
      Re: ?Best Upgrade System for Old iMac 8,1 w/10.5? Fred Moore <fmoore@gcfn.org> - 2015-05-01 12:25 -0400
        Re: ?Best Upgrade System for Old iMac 8,1 w/10.5? dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2015-05-02 11:40 +1200
          Re: ?Best Upgrade System for Old iMac 8,1 w/10.5? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-05-01 19:51 -0400
          Re: ?Best Upgrade System for Old iMac 8,1 w/10.5? Fred Moore <fmoore@gcfn.org> - 2015-05-02 12:22 -0400
            Re: ?Best Upgrade System for Old iMac 8,1 w/10.5? dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2015-05-03 16:20 +1200
              Re: ?Best Upgrade System for Old iMac 8,1 w/10.5? Fred Moore <fmoore@gcfn.org> - 2015-05-04 11:49 -0400
        Re: ?Best Upgrade System for Old iMac 8,1 w/10.5? Andreas Rutishauser <andreas@macandreas.ch> - 2015-05-02 07:14 +0200
          Re: ?Best Upgrade System for Old iMac 8,1 w/10.5? Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2015-05-02 08:00 -0400
    Re: ?Best Upgrade System for Old iMac 8,1 w/10.5? Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2015-05-01 08:36 -0400
      Re: ?Best Upgrade System for Old iMac 8,1 w/10.5? Fred Moore <fmoore@gcfn.org> - 2015-05-01 12:29 -0400
        Re: ?Best Upgrade System for Old iMac 8,1 w/10.5? Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2015-05-01 12:44 -0400
          Re: ?Best Upgrade System for Old iMac 8,1 w/10.5? Fred Moore <fmoore@gcfn.org> - 2015-05-01 13:28 -0400
            Re: ?Best Upgrade System for Old iMac 8,1 w/10.5? Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2015-05-01 15:04 -0400
              Re: ?Best Upgrade System for Old iMac 8,1 w/10.5? Fred Moore <fmoore@gcfn.org> - 2015-05-01 16:10 -0400
                Re: ?Best Upgrade System for Old iMac 8,1 w/10.5? Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2015-05-01 16:21 -0400
        Re: ?Best Upgrade System for Old iMac 8,1 w/10.5? Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2015-05-03 09:07 -0400
          Re: ?Best Upgrade System for Old iMac 8,1 w/10.5? Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2015-05-03 09:12 -0400
          Re: ?Best Upgrade System for Old iMac 8,1 w/10.5? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-05-03 20:39 +0000
            Re: ?Best Upgrade System for Old iMac 8,1 w/10.5? dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2015-05-04 11:59 +1200
          Re: ?Best Upgrade System for Old iMac 8,1 w/10.5? Fred Moore <fmoore@gcfn.org> - 2015-05-04 11:58 -0400
            Re: ?Best Upgrade System for Old iMac 8,1 w/10.5? Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2015-05-04 12:04 -0400
              Re: ?Best Upgrade System for Old iMac 8,1 w/10.5? Fred Moore <fmoore@gcfn.org> - 2015-05-04 17:17 -0400
    Re: ?Best Upgrade System for Old iMac 8,1 w/10.5? John Albert <j.albert@snet.net> - 2015-05-02 00:06 -0400
      Re: ?Best Upgrade System for Old iMac 8,1 w/10.5? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-05-02 00:14 -0400
      Re: ?Best Upgrade System for Old iMac 8,1 w/10.5? Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2015-05-02 07:57 -0400
        Re: ?Best Upgrade System for Old iMac 8,1 w/10.5? Fred Moore <fmoore@gcfn.org> - 2015-05-02 12:37 -0400
          Re: ?Best Upgrade System for Old iMac 8,1 w/10.5? Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2015-05-02 15:17 -0400
            Re: ?Best Upgrade System for Old iMac 8,1 w/10.5? Fred Moore <fmoore@gcfn.org> - 2015-05-02 15:45 -0400
      Re: ?Best Upgrade System for Old iMac 8,1 w/10.5? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-05-02 16:41 +0000
      Re: ?Best Upgrade System for Old iMac 8,1 w/10.5? Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2015-05-03 09:08 -0400
        Re: ?Best Upgrade System for Old iMac 8,1 w/10.5? Fred Moore <fmoore@gcfn.org> - 2015-05-04 12:00 -0400
    Re: ?Best Upgrade System for Old iMac 8,1 w/10.5? Electric Comet <electric-comet@mail.invalid> - 2015-05-02 20:33 -0700

Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4  Next page →

#74676

On 5/1/15 7:40 p, David Empson wrote:
> Fred Moore <fmoore@gcfn.org> wrote:
>
>>>> I have some friends who have an iMac 8,1 early 2008 Intel, 4GB RAM (the
>>>> max), and running OS 10.5. According to MacTracker, the machine will run
>>>> up to to 10.9.
>
> Apple doesn't do aftermarket memory upgrades. You would need to get the
> memory from somewhere like Other World Computing and install it
> yourself.
>
> It isn't particularly cost effective: the 4 GB module required for that
> model is over US$100, which is more than three times the price of the
> corresponding 2 GB module.
>
> http://eshop.macsales.com/item/OWC/5300DDR2S4GB/
>
> If you can justify the cost, it is probably worth it for the likely
> performance boost (assuming the same working set: less need for memory
> compression and less hard drive activity from swapping).

Right, I was not planning to suggest to them spending the money for the 
upgrade from 4GB to 6GB since the machine is old. However, if the system 
upgrade goes well and it seems just a little speed might be with more 
RAM, we'd reconsider.

>>>> The other alternative is to just buy a new machine. Do you think this OS
>>>> upgrading is not worth the effort?
>>>
>>> If you want to migrate your data from the existing iMac to a new one,
>>> you have to update the old one to 10.6.x anyway...
>>
>> Not to pick a nit, but importing data from a 10.5 (Intel) diskimage
>> should work, right?
>
> Not if you want to use Migration Assistant (or Setup Assistant during
> initial setup). For recent OS X versions, the source Mac for a migration
> must be running 10.6 or later.

*Thank*you*, David! That's a *very* valuable piece of info. (I should 
have guessed it.) While I was pondering this project, I was thinking 
that since I had the 10.9 installer I might be able to bypass having 
them install 10.6. Now I know I can't because using Migration Assistant 
is crucial. These folks are computer literate, but not power users. Also 
this 2008 Mac was their first, so they don't have a lot of cruft to weed 
out, which might justify a manual migration.

> It was possible to migrate from 10.5 to 10.8, but not from 10.5 to 10.9
> or 10.10. In fact, Apple stretched the minimum version by one for 10.10:
> for 10.6 through 10.9, the limit was migrating from three versions
> earlier.
>
> Manual copying from 10.5 to 10.10 is possible, but a lot more work as
> you would have to export a fair amount of stuff on the old Mac which is
> stored in databases (e.g. Address Book, iCal) and import it on the new
> Mac.

Lewis claims 10.10 would run as fast as 10.9 on this old machine. I can 
always tell them to invest in a new machine, though I'm sure they'd 
rather not spend the money till they absolutely have to. What's your 
opinion?

Because of the significant interface revisions in 10.10 and the related 
complaints, I'm very hesitant to dump 10.10 on them. Do you have an 
opinion as to whether 10.9 or 10.10 would be speedier and easier to use 
on this machine? Thanks for responding.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#74729

Fred Moore <fmoore@gcfn.org> wrote:

> On 5/1/15 7:40 p, David Empson wrote:
> > Fred Moore <fmoore@gcfn.org> wrote:
> >
> >>>> I have some friends who have an iMac 8,1 early 2008 Intel, 4GB RAM (the
> >>>> max), and running OS 10.5. According to MacTracker, the machine will run
> >>>> up to to 10.9.
> >

[...]

> > It was possible to migrate from 10.5 to 10.8, but not from 10.5 to 10.9
> > or 10.10. In fact, Apple stretched the minimum version by one for 10.10:
> > for 10.6 through 10.9, the limit was migrating from three versions
> > earlier.
> >
> > Manual copying from 10.5 to 10.10 is possible, but a lot more work as
> > you would have to export a fair amount of stuff on the old Mac which is
> > stored in databases (e.g. Address Book, iCal) and import it on the new
> > Mac.
> 
> Lewis claims 10.10 would run as fast as 10.9 on this old machine. I can
> always tell them to invest in a new machine, though I'm sure they'd 
> rather not spend the money till they absolutely have to. What's your 
> opinion?

I haven't noticed any performance differences between 10.9 and 10.10,
but my MacBook Pro (Retina, Late 2013) has rather higher specifications
than the one you are dealing with, so that won't help.

I can't speak much from personal experience, as I haven't used 10.9 or
10.10 much on an older Mac with a hard drive. My partner's MacBook Pro
(13-inch, Mid 2012) with 4 GB memory and its original hard drive is
running 10.8 and it seems OK. We'll probably be updating it to 10.10
soon, and I'm anticipating installing more memory to give it a speed
boost and for future proofing (it can go to 8 GB).

I'd expect 10.10 and 10.9 to perform about the same (subjectively), but
whether that can be classified as "fast" will depend hugely on what the
computer is doing.

There have been some reports of older Macs with hard drives performing
sluggishly in recent OS X versions, compared to how they performed in
10.6, and the common factor seems to be excessive hard drive activity
(not necessarily due to virtual memory swapping, but that will make
things a lot worse, so installing more memory reduces that aspect).
Replacing the hard drive with an SSD made a huge improvement, but that
is a rather expensive upgrade, especially if you need lots of internal
storage.

These complaints seemed to start around 10.8, but they are certainly not
universal. Other people are running 10.10 on a Mac with a hard drive and
4 GB of memory just fine.

> Because of the significant interface revisions in 10.10 and the related
> complaints, I'm very hesitant to dump 10.10 on them. Do you have an 
> opinion as to whether 10.9 or 10.10 would be speedier and easier to use
> on this machine? Thanks for responding.

Speed discussed above.

Ease of use is subjective. I've got used to most of the changes in
Yosemite: the only one which keeps annoying me occasionally is the green
button going to full screen mode, but I've mostly adapted to either
double-clicking the title bar or option-clicking the green button.

While helping other people, the "hidden user interface features" aspect
seems to be the main point of confusion, particularly full screen mode,
and controls which only appear when you mouse over them. I've adapted to
those.

I found the changes in Lion, Mountain Lion and Mavericks more
disruptive: I still don't like the way tags are shown in Finder (which
changed in Mavericks) compared to labels previously. Yosemite changed
the overall appearance in many ways (e.g. the standard system font).

Many of the worst changes in Lion were undone in Mountain Lion, e.g. the
insanely skeumorphic Address Book being less functional because you
couldn't see the list of groups, list of names and an individual card at
the same time because it insisted on having two "pages" in view and
toggling between modes. I mostly avoided Lion - updated to it about ten
months after it was introduced, then went to Mountain Lion two months
later.

-- 
David Empson
dempson@actrix.gen.nz

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#74821

On 5/3/15 12:20 a, David Empson wrote:
> Fred Moore <fmoore@gcfn.org> wrote:
>> On 5/1/15 7:40 p, David Empson wrote:
>>> Fred Moore <fmoore@gcfn.org> wrote:
>>>>>> I have some friends who have an iMac 8,1 early 2008 Intel, 4GB RAM (the
>>>>>> max), and running OS 10.5. According to MacTracker, the machine will run
>>>>>> up to to 10.9.
> [...]
>> Lewis claims 10.10 would run as fast as 10.9 on this old machine. I can
>> always tell them to invest in a new machine, though I'm sure they'd
>> rather not spend the money till they absolutely have to. What's your
>> opinion?
>
> I haven't noticed any performance differences between 10.9 and 10.10,
> but my MacBook Pro (Retina, Late 2013) has rather higher specifications
> than the one you are dealing with, so that won't help.
>
> I can't speak much from personal experience, as I haven't used 10.9 or
> 10.10 much on an older Mac with a hard drive. My partner's MacBook Pro
> (13-inch, Mid 2012) with 4 GB memory and its original hard drive is
> running 10.8 and it seems OK. We'll probably be updating it to 10.10
> soon, and I'm anticipating installing more memory to give it a speed
> boost and for future proofing (it can go to 8 GB).
>
> I'd expect 10.10 and 10.9 to perform about the same (subjectively), but
> whether that can be classified as "fast" will depend hugely on what the
> computer is doing.

Several people here have said there isn't much speed difference here 
between 10.9 and 10.10 on older machines. 10.10 certainly would be 
easier to install after they do the 10.6 upgrade, so I'm beginning to 
lean that way now. The users are doing a little photo editing, but not 
much other heavy lifting.

(And thanks again for the tip that one can't install directly from the 
10.9 installer over a 10.5 system.)

> There have been some reports of older Macs with hard drives performing
> sluggishly in recent OS X versions, compared to how they performed in
> 10.6, and the common factor seems to be excessive hard drive activity
> (not necessarily due to virtual memory swapping, but that will make
> things a lot worse, so installing more memory reduces that aspect).
> Replacing the hard drive with an SSD made a huge improvement, but that
> is a rather expensive upgrade, especially if you need lots of internal
> storage.

The mention of hard drive performance brings up the point that the HD in 
the machine is the _original_ (7 yrs old). Expecting that it may be 
about to die (but no such symptoms yet), it might argue for a new 
machine rather than spending $200-$300 for a replacement through a local 
Apple-authorized repair shop. On the other side of that coin, the 
upgrade to 10.10 would only cost $20 for 10.6 and some time. If things 
went belly up after that, no great loss as long as they have kept their 
backups current.

> These complaints seemed to start around 10.8, but they are certainly not
> universal. Other people are running 10.10 on a Mac with a hard drive and
> 4 GB of memory just fine.
>
>> Because of the significant interface revisions in 10.10 and the related
>> complaints, I'm very hesitant to dump 10.10 on them. Do you have an
>> opinion as to whether 10.9 or 10.10 would be speedier and easier to use
>> on this machine? Thanks for responding.
>
> Speed discussed above.
>
> Ease of use is subjective. I've got used to most of the changes in
> Yosemite: the only one which keeps annoying me occasionally is the green
> button going to full screen mode, but I've mostly adapted to either
> double-clicking the title bar or option-clicking the green button.
>
> While helping other people, the "hidden user interface features" aspect
> seems to be the main point of confusion, particularly full screen mode,
> and controls which only appear when you mouse over them. I've adapted to
> those.

They have an Apple store near them (they're almost 500 miles from me), 
so I think I'll send them over there to try out the interface to see if 
they object to it from the getgo. And I recommend, as I always do, that 
they get a copy of David Pogue's Mac OS book for whatever they install.

> I found the changes in Lion, Mountain Lion and Mavericks more
> disruptive: I still don't like the way tags are shown in Finder (which
> changed in Mavericks) compared to labels previously. Yosemite changed
> the overall appearance in many ways (e.g. the standard system font).
>
> Many of the worst changes in Lion were undone in Mountain Lion, e.g. the
> insanely skeumorphic Address Book being less functional because you
> couldn't see the list of groups, list of names and an individual card at
> the same time because it insisted on having two "pages" in view and
> toggling between modes. I mostly avoided Lion - updated to it about ten
> months after it was introduced, then went to Mountain Lion two months
> later.

Thanks so much, David, for taking the time to provide your usual 
spot-on, detailed responses. And thanks to everyone else as well. It's 
given me a good picture of what to expect. Very much appreciated!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#74653

Salut Fred

In article <mi09bn$7v7$1@dont-email.me>, Fred Moore <fmoore@gcfn.org> 
wrote:

> On 5/1/15 3:17 a, Andreas Rutishauser wrote:
> > In article <mhtrd2$k48$1@dont-email.me>, Fred Moore <fmoore@gcfn.org>
> > wrote:

> > If you want to migrate your data from the existing iMac to a new one,
> > you have to update the old one to 10.6.x anyway...
> 
> Not to pick a nit, but importing data from a 10.5 (Intel) diskimage 
> should work, right?

if by "importing" you mean copying single files, yes that should work.
As soon as we are talking structured content of applications (thinking 
of iCal/Calendar, Address Book/Contacts, Mail.app, iPhoto, iTunes etc.) 
my opinion is that Migration/Setup Assistant is the way to go.

Target Didk Mode is less work than making a disk image ;-)

Cheers
Andreas

-- 
MacAndreas Rutishauser, <http://www.MacAndreas.ch> 
EDV-Dienstleistungen, Hard- und Software, Internet und Netzwerk
Beratung, Unterstuetzung und Schulung
<mailto:andreas@MacAndreas.ch>, Fon: 044 / 721 36 47

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#74670

In article <andreas-D6B573.07140902052015@news.individual.de>,
 Andreas Rutishauser <andreas@macandreas.ch> wrote:

> if by "importing" you mean copying single files, yes that should work.
> As soon as we are talking structured content of applications (thinking 
> of iCal/Calendar, Address Book/Contacts, Mail.app, iPhoto, iTunes etc.) 
> my opinion is that Migration/Setup Assistant is the way to go.

I keep little rsync scripts around for that, so that I can keep the 
laptop "in sync" with the iMac (which we consider the master). BusyCal 
is easier, I can just do a restore from one machine to another over the 
LAN. Don't forget Stickies!
-- 
Where's the Vangelis music?
Pris' tongue is sticking out in in the wide shot after Batty has kissed her.
They have put back more tits into the Zhora dressing  room scene.
  -- notes for Blade Runner

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#74589

On 2015-04-30 14:14, Fred Moore wrote:
> I have some friends who have an iMac 8,1 early 2008 Intel, 4GB RAM (the
> max), and running OS 10.5. According to MacTracker, the machine will run

Replace one set of 2 GB with 4 for a total of 6.  The unofficial max.

> up to to 10.9. They are having problems with some websites not working
> properly and demanding later versions of Safari, Flash, and other apps
> which won't run on 10.5
>
> My question is what is the latest OS to upgrade to that won't produce a
> dead slow user experience? I'd love to recommend 10.9, but not if they
> have to take a coffee break at every webpage load or simple graphics
> operation. So 10.6, 10.7, 10.8 or 10.9?

10.10.

>
> Also, what are the mechanics of upgrading. Do they have to buy 10.6 from
> Apple for $20, install it, and then use the App Store from there for
> higher versions?

Update to 10.6, then 10.6.8 then 10.10.  Not sure if the first step will 
cost anything.  Call Apple.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#74604

On 5/1/15 8:36 a, Alan Browne wrote:
> On 2015-04-30 14:14, Fred Moore wrote:
>> I have some friends who have an iMac 8,1 early 2008 Intel, 4GB RAM (the
>> max), and running OS 10.5. According to MacTracker, the machine will run
>
> Replace one set of 2 GB with 4 for a total of 6.  The unofficial max.

Right. My hesitation is, do you think it's worthwhile spending that 
money on a machine which is already old and technically, by Apple's 
standards, obsolete?

>> up to to 10.9. They are having problems with some websites not working
>> properly and demanding later versions of Safari, Flash, and other apps
>> which won't run on 10.5
>>
>> My question is what is the latest OS to upgrade to that won't produce a
>> dead slow user experience? I'd love to recommend 10.9, but not if they
>> have to take a coffee break at every webpage load or simple graphics
>> operation. So 10.6, 10.7, 10.8 or 10.9?
>
> 10.10.

You think that's preferable to 10.9, given all the complaints about 
10.10? I do have an installer for 10.9 which I could sanitize (remove my 
Apple ID from) and snail mail them.

>> Also, what are the mechanics of upgrading. Do they have to buy 10.6 from
>> Apple for $20, install it, and then use the App Store from there for
>> higher versions?
>
> Update to 10.6, then 10.6.8 then 10.10.  Not sure if the first step will
> cost anything.  Call Apple.
>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#74611

In article <mi09jl$8r2$1@dont-email.me>, Fred Moore <fmoore@gcfn.org> 
wrote:

> You think that's preferable to 10.9, given all the complaints about 
> 10.10? I do have an installer for 10.9 which I could sanitize (remove my 
> Apple ID from) and snail mail them.

How do you do that?
-- 
Where's the Vangelis music?
Pris' tongue is sticking out in in the wide shot after Batty has kissed her.
They have put back more tits into the Zhora dressing  room scene.
  -- notes for Blade Runner

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#74612

On 5/1/15 12:44 p, Warren Oates wrote:
> In article <mi09jl$8r2$1@dont-email.me>, Fred Moore <fmoore@gcfn.org>
> wrote:
>
>> You think that's preferable to 10.9, given all the complaints about
>> 10.10? I do have an installer for 10.9 which I could sanitize (remove
>> my Apple ID from) and snail mail them.
>
> How do you do that?

I haven't tried this myself, but according to a couple of posts on 
Macintouch, after you have captured the installer:

4/29/2014
<http://www.macintouch.com/readerreports/mavericks/topic5002-013.html#d29apr2014>
You can remove the Apple ID information from any App Store file by 
control-clicking the installer or the app to view the contents and then 
deleting the file "_MASReceipt", after which the Store will not ask for 
the Apple ID. The downside of doing that is that it may not recognize 
software you have purchased as yours and will not provide normal updates.

or

10/31/2014
<http://www.macintouch.com/readerreports/yosemite/topic5009-003.html#d31oct2014>
However, I have found that you can change the Apple ID during the 
installation process. Once the computer has rebooted into the freshly 
installed OS, you have to go through the initial setup (select country 
and keyboard layout, create computer account, etc.). Once you get to the 
step to create your user account, click on the back button. This takes 
you to a screen to sign in with your Apple ID.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#74621

In article <mi0d12$nfq$1@dont-email.me>, Fred Moore <fmoore@gcfn.org> 
wrote:

> I haven't tried this myself, but according to a couple of posts on 
> Macintouch, after you have captured the installer:

[...]

Thanks for those links. I've installed Yosemite a couple of times using 
the same downloaded app and I didn't remember the Apple ID being a 
problem.
-- 
Where's the Vangelis music?
Pris' tongue is sticking out in in the wide shot after Batty has kissed her.
They have put back more tits into the Zhora dressing  room scene.
  -- notes for Blade Runner

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#74626

On 5/1/15 3:04 p, Warren Oates wrote:
> In article <mi0d12$nfq$1@dont-email.me>, Fred Moore <fmoore@gcfn.org>
> wrote:
>
>> I haven't tried this myself, but according to a couple of posts on
>> Macintouch, after you have captured the installer:
>
> [...]
>
> Thanks for those links. I've installed Yosemite a couple of times using
> the same downloaded app and I didn't remember the Apple ID being a problem.

At the risk of being tedious, just to be completely clear, it's 
supposedly only a problem if you take the installer _you_ downloaded and 
used and then try to install the OS on _someone_else's_ computer which 
isn't meant to be linked to you at all. If you don't 'sanitize' the 
installer, the machine and other software downloads will supposedly be 
linked to _you_ and demand _your_ AppleID, not the real owner of the 
machine.

Why Apple makes this so difficult for a FREE product, I don't know.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#74627

In article <mi0mha$v87$1@dont-email.me>, Fred Moore <fmoore@gcfn.org> 
wrote:

> On 5/1/15 3:04 p, Warren Oates wrote:
> > In article <mi0d12$nfq$1@dont-email.me>, Fred Moore <fmoore@gcfn.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> I haven't tried this myself, but according to a couple of posts on
> >> Macintouch, after you have captured the installer:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > Thanks for those links. I've installed Yosemite a couple of times using
> > the same downloaded app and I didn't remember the Apple ID being a problem.
> 
> At the risk of being tedious, just to be completely clear, it's 
> supposedly only a problem if you take the installer _you_ downloaded and 
> used and then try to install the OS on _someone_else's_ computer which 
> isn't meant to be linked to you at all. If you don't 'sanitize' the 
> installer, the machine and other software downloads will supposedly be 
> linked to _you_ and demand _your_ AppleID, not the real owner of the 
> machine.
> 
> Why Apple makes this so difficult for a FREE product, I don't know.

Well, it's supposed to be  free _upgrade_ to a product you previously 
purchased, I guess. But since it's a free upgrade going back to 10.6.x, 
then I guess they just want you to buy stuff from the Apple Store.
-- 
Where's the Vangelis music?
Pris' tongue is sticking out in in the wide shot after Batty has kissed her.
They have put back more tits into the Zhora dressing  room scene.
  -- notes for Blade Runner

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#74740

On 2015-05-01 12:29, Fred Moore wrote:
> On 5/1/15 8:36 a, Alan Browne wrote:
>> On 2015-04-30 14:14, Fred Moore wrote:
>>> I have some friends who have an iMac 8,1 early 2008 Intel, 4GB RAM (the
>>> max), and running OS 10.5. According to MacTracker, the machine will run
>>
>> Replace one set of 2 GB with 4 for a total of 6.  The unofficial max.
>
> Right. My hesitation is, do you think it's worthwhile spending that
> money on a machine which is already old and technically, by Apple's
> standards, obsolete?

Apple's standards?  What's that got to do with anything.  The standard 
that matters is how much more useful life you can get out of the 
computer.  It is fine for Photoshop, web, spreadsheets, word processing, 
etc. etc. etc.

Think of the embodied energy in making that thing.  Make it work off 
that debt!

>>> up to to 10.9. They are having problems with some websites not working
>>> properly and demanding later versions of Safari, Flash, and other apps
>>> which won't run on 10.5
>>>
>>> My question is what is the latest OS to upgrade to that won't produce a
>>> dead slow user experience? I'd love to recommend 10.9, but not if they
>>> have to take a coffee break at every webpage load or simple graphics
>>> operation. So 10.6, 10.7, 10.8 or 10.9?
>>
>> 10.10.
>
> You think that's preferable to 10.9, given all the complaints about
> 10.10? I do have an installer for 10.9 which I could sanitize (remove my
> Apple ID from) and snail mail them.

10.10 does not increase "load" on the computer but it does reduce bugs.

Not sure if you can install 10.9 on a machine that currently has 10.5 
even with the installer.

>
>>> Also, what are the mechanics of upgrading. Do they have to buy 10.6 from
>>> Apple for $20, install it, and then use the App Store from there for
>>> higher versions?
>>
>> Update to 10.6, then 10.6.8 then 10.10.  Not sure if the first step will
>> cost anything.  Call Apple.
>>
>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#74745

In article <5tmdnTBrMKDogNvInZ2dnUU7-S-dnZ2d@giganews.com>,
 Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:

> Not sure if you can install 10.9 on a machine that currently has 10.5 
> even with the installer.

No. You'd have to upgrade somehow to 10.6.x and then use the installer. 
It's worth the effort.
-- 
Where's the Vangelis music?
Pris' tongue is sticking out in in the wide shot after Batty has kissed her.
They have put back more tits into the Zhora dressing  room scene.
  -- notes for Blade Runner

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#74779

In message <5tmdnTBrMKDogNvInZ2dnUU7-S-dnZ2d@giganews.com> 
  Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
> Not sure if you can install 10.9 on a machine that currently has 10.5 
> even with the installer.

You can install 10.9 on any machine that suports it if you use the disk
image to boot the machine. You cannot use the installer unless the
machine has 10.6.8 or higher on it.

Using the disk image to boot may require you to reformat a 10.5 disk.

-- 
One of the most basic rules of survival on any planet is never to upset
someone wearing black leather. --The Last Continent

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#74787

Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

> In message <5tmdnTBrMKDogNvInZ2dnUU7-S-dnZ2d@giganews.com> 
>   Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
> > Not sure if you can install 10.9 on a machine that currently has 10.5
> > even with the installer.
> 
> You can install 10.9 on any machine that suports it if you use the disk
> image to boot the machine. You cannot use the installer unless the
> machine has 10.6.8 or higher on it.

Agreed.

> Using the disk image to boot may require you to reformat a 10.5 disk.

10.7 and later refuse to install on top of 10.5 or earlier. You have to
erase the existing system first.

This seems odd, because 10.7 can migrate from 10.4 or 10.5 and was able
to be purchased as a bootable installer (albeit more expensive).
Presumably Apple wanted to push App Store as the recommended
distribution method, therefore the official path is to upgrade to 10.6
first, then update to 10.6.8, then upgrade to anything later.

10.8 can also migrate from 10.5, but 10.8 was only distributed via App
Store.

Going from 10.5 to 10.9 or 10.10 while retained user accounts etc. is
much easier if you install 10.6 first, since that allows a two stage
upgrade rather than throwing everything away or having to manually copy
and convert things.

-- 
David Empson
dempson@actrix.gen.nz

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#74823

On 5/3/15 9:07 a, Alan Browne wrote:
> On 2015-05-01 12:29, Fred Moore wrote:
>> On 5/1/15 8:36 a, Alan Browne wrote:
>>> On 2015-04-30 14:14, Fred Moore wrote:
>>>> I have some friends who have an iMac 8,1 early 2008 Intel, 4GB RAM (the
>>>> max), and running OS 10.5. According to MacTracker, the machine will
>>>> run
>>>
>>> Replace one set of 2 GB with 4 for a total of 6.  The unofficial max.
>>
>> Right. My hesitation is, do you think it's worthwhile spending that
>> money on a machine which is already old and technically, by Apple's
>> standards, obsolete?
>
> Apple's standards?  What's that got to do with anything.  The standard
> that matters is how much more useful life you can get out of the
> computer.  It is fine for Photoshop, web, spreadsheets, word processing,
> etc. etc. etc.
>
> Think of the embodied energy in making that thing.  Make it work off
> that debt!

Of course. However, with older machines and OSes, things can stop 
working properly and Apple may (often does) stop providing security and 
other usability updates. Still, it only costs $20 to get them to 10.10, 
so why not?

>>>> up to to 10.9. They are having problems with some websites not working
>>>> properly and demanding later versions of Safari, Flash, and other apps
>>>> which won't run on 10.5
>>>>
>>>> My question is what is the latest OS to upgrade to that won't produce a
>>>> dead slow user experience? I'd love to recommend 10.9, but not if they
>>>> have to take a coffee break at every webpage load or simple graphics
>>>> operation. So 10.6, 10.7, 10.8 or 10.9?
>>>
>>> 10.10.
>>
>> You think that's preferable to 10.9, given all the complaints about
>> 10.10? I do have an installer for 10.9 which I could sanitize (remove my
>> Apple ID from) and snail mail them.
>
> 10.10 does not increase "load" on the computer but it does reduce bugs.

Comments from you and others are making me lean more and more toward 
10.10. I'm going to send the users to their local Apple store to try out 
10.10 in case there is something they just can't tolerate. (I really 
want to avoid having to revert to 10.9 after installing 10.10.)

> Not sure if you can install 10.9 on a machine that currently has 10.5
> even with the installer.

Yes, David and others have said you must be at 10.6 at least for any 
later version installer to work.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#74825

On 2015-05-04 11:58, Fred Moore wrote:
> On 5/3/15 9:07 a, Alan Browne wrote:
>> On 2015-05-01 12:29, Fred Moore wrote:
>>> On 5/1/15 8:36 a, Alan Browne wrote:
>>>> On 2015-04-30 14:14, Fred Moore wrote:
>>>>> I have some friends who have an iMac 8,1 early 2008 Intel, 4GB RAM
>>>>> (the
>>>>> max), and running OS 10.5. According to MacTracker, the machine will
>>>>> run
>>>>
>>>> Replace one set of 2 GB with 4 for a total of 6.  The unofficial max.
>>>
>>> Right. My hesitation is, do you think it's worthwhile spending that
>>> money on a machine which is already old and technically, by Apple's
>>> standards, obsolete?
>>
>> Apple's standards?  What's that got to do with anything.  The standard
>> that matters is how much more useful life you can get out of the
>> computer.  It is fine for Photoshop, web, spreadsheets, word processing,
>> etc. etc. etc.
>>
>> Think of the embodied energy in making that thing.  Make it work off
>> that debt!
>
> Of course. However, with older machines and OSes, things can stop
> working properly and Apple may (often does) stop providing security and
> other usability updates. Still, it only costs $20 to get them to 10.10,
> so why not?

Older machines and old OS's never stop working absent a hardware 
failure.  The old machine will do what it always did.  The exceptions 
would be in changes in web based applications where the newer web 
browsers might not work well on the older hardware; other new versions 
of s/w might not run, etc.

That machine could be lifting weight for years to come.

I sold a 2007 iMac (upgraded at the time to 10.9. 2 TB and 6 GB of Ram) 
to a fellow who gave it to his wife to find it hijacked by his kids ... 
alas.  Still going strong...

>>>>> up to to 10.9. They are having problems with some websites not working
>>>>> properly and demanding later versions of Safari, Flash, and other apps
>>>>> which won't run on 10.5
>>>>>
>>>>> My question is what is the latest OS to upgrade to that won't
>>>>> produce a
>>>>> dead slow user experience? I'd love to recommend 10.9, but not if they
>>>>> have to take a coffee break at every webpage load or simple graphics
>>>>> operation. So 10.6, 10.7, 10.8 or 10.9?
>>>>
>>>> 10.10.
>>>
>>> You think that's preferable to 10.9, given all the complaints about
>>> 10.10? I do have an installer for 10.9 which I could sanitize (remove my
>>> Apple ID from) and snail mail them.
>>
>> 10.10 does not increase "load" on the computer but it does reduce bugs.
>
> Comments from you and others are making me lean more and more toward
> 10.10. I'm going to send the users to their local Apple store to try out
> 10.10 in case there is something they just can't tolerate. (I really
> want to avoid having to revert to 10.9 after installing 10.10.)
>
>> Not sure if you can install 10.9 on a machine that currently has 10.5
>> even with the installer.
>
> Yes, David and others have said you must be at 10.6 at least for any
> later version installer to work.

Yep.  The tricky Apple transition to free OS from declining price OS...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#74838

On 5/4/15 12:04 p, Alan Browne wrote:
> Older machines and old OS's never stop working absent a hardware
> failure.  The old machine will do what it always did.  The exceptions
> would be in changes in web based applications where the newer web
> browsers might not work well on the older hardware; other new versions
> of s/w might not run, etc.

Well, the exceptions, while perhaps not being the rule, can be the deal 
breakers which render the old machine 'unusable'.

That's the case with the users I'm helping. Several web sites which are 
crucial to them won't work either because the sites claim the users need 
a later browser (I have tried some non-Safari remedies with mixed 
results) or because they require a version of Flash the users can't run. 
(I know, I know, Flash should be banished; but they can't because of 
some  websites they must access demand it.)

So what are they to do? Fortunately, in this case it seems upgrading the 
OS will fix the problem; but not all old machines can do that, and this 
machine probably won't be able to such an equivalent upgrade at some 
time in the future.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#74650

On 4/30/15 2:14 PM, Fred Moore wrote:
>
> My question is what is the latest OS to upgrade to that
> won't produce a dead slow user experience? I'd love to
> recommend 10.9, but not if they have to take a coffee break
> at every webpage load or simple graphics operation. So 10.6,
> 10.7, 10.8 or 10.9?

I suggest 10.8.5

With 10.9 or 10.10, I predict "performance" is going to be 
something less than desired.
As in,  S___L__O__W ...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.mac.system

csiph-web