Re: When people say Leopard is problematic...
- From: Madwen <wyvern@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2008 12:55:36 -0600
In article <gkreme-A0C627.15211929012008@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Lewis <gkreme@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In article <learner-94CB2B.15540529012008@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
learner <learner@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In article
<0001HW.C395827F00971044F030A6D8@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
J.J. O'Shea <try.not.to@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
If you've eliminated everything else, and you have, then it must
be either the hardware or the OS. We know the OS works elsewhere.
That leaves just the hardware.
I again suggest that you check the hardware, especially the RAM.
Leopard requires a lot more memory than Tiger.
No, it really doesn't.
That probably depends on the configuration. I installed Leopard on my
867 MHz, 1.2 GB RAM Quicksilver. It takes significantly more RAM than
did Panther (never did Tiger). I can only run maybe 2/3 of the apps
simultaneously as I used to under Panther. I am still comfortable but I
do find myself, now and then, quitting least-used apps in order to gain
in performance. Right now I'm running 6 major apps with a bunch of
stuff in the background and the performance is excellent with better
speed than in Panther. Not bad at all for a computer of this vintage.
But if I wanted to run Excel right now, I'd have to drop something else.
.
- References:
- Re: When people say Leopard is problematic...
- From: learner
- Re: When people say Leopard is problematic...
- Prev by Date: Re: Need help writing script to find files by date
- Next by Date: Re: Do you want to know the truth??
- Previous by thread: Re: When people say Leopard is problematic...
- Next by thread: Re: When people say Leopard is problematic...
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading