Panther or Tiger on iBook G3?

Both Panther and Tiger would run similarly well on your iBook. Although Panther does not have the same minimum RAM requirements as Tiger, you have adequate RAM to use either version. Both will run at roughly similar speed and you have the video horsepower to take advantage of almost all the graphic capabilities that Tiger has to offer.

Tiger's space requirements are about .5 to 1 GB more than Panther's which shouldn't make much of a difference given the free space you currently have.

Because you can buy Tiger at the educational discount price you are far better off with it than buying Panther.

NCLauren:

Welcome to Apple Discussions.

Go for Panther. Tiger has a lot of bells and whistles, but it also has a lot of rough edges. People have reported running it on G3s, but I tried it on my Pismo and it worked but not as soothly as Panther. For example, iTunes did not play as well: sound was distorted and sometimes garbled. I am back to Panther and everything is OK.

That's my two bits.

If you don't have Panther Disks you can purchase at:
1. eBay or
2. OWC

Post back with questions.

Good luck.

c o r n e l i u s

PB G3 Pismo400, 100 GB 5400 Toshiba internal, 1 GB RAM Mac OS X (10.3.9) Beige G3 OS 8.6

Only purchase the standard four CD retail package. Anything else is either OEM, upgrade disks, or pirated copies. The standard retail Panther package was only sold as a four CD set.

BTW, Tiger really isn't any buggier than Panther and is, perhaps, even stabler. Most people who have had problems, it was due to poor installation practice and/or incompatible software. Yes, Tiger has its "real" problems and you can explore them at macfixit.com to determine if any of the known problems will affect you. However, be sure to check that same info for Panther. Ignore most of the whining here on the forums. For every person here who tells you Tiger is no good there are a thousand other users who have no problems whatsoever or very minor ones. Also keep in mind that just because someone says something doesn't work, it isn't necessarily the operating system, but the operator.

Just thought I'd add to your confusion!

Kappy:

Also keep in mind that just because someone says something doesn't work, it isn't necessarily the operating system, but the operator.

This is bit of a blanket statement that is not necessarily true. I know that I have tried Tiger on my Pismo 400 and had problems, very likely due to processor speed. On my Pismo 500, I have had no problems. Same operator, same OS, different computers. Go figure.

Good luck.

c o r n e l i u s

PB G3 Pismo400, 100 GB 5400 Toshiba internal, 1 GB RAM Mac OS X (10.3.9) Beige G3 OS 8.6

Cornelius,

Note my wording says "it isn't necessarily." It's isn't a blanket statement. It's quite true that just because someone complains about OS X, doesn't mean that OS X is the problem.

Your case is a perfect example. If OS X works on one Pismo but not the other, then why is it an OS X problem? Could it not be a hardware problem? Why would processor speed have a thing to do with it when you can run Tiger on slower computers? I don't mean this badly, but your assumption about processor speed makes no logical sense if you can run Tiger on a 366 MHz iBook or a 300 MHz B&W G3. Apple itself certifies that a 400 MHz Pismo will run Tiger. Using XPostFacto I can put Panther on my original G3 powerbook which is a 250 MHz model that isn't even supposed to be able to install OS X.

You prove my point. Now, don't get me wrong. Your situation may not be an "operator" problem, but it's certainly not an OS X problem.

Kappy:

It doesn't prove anything. Tiger is the new kid on the block, and I don't want to detract from it, but it is not the best thing since sliced bread. It does run on my Pismo 400, as on the other computers you cited, but that does not mean it runs as well as Panther or even OS 9.

To put everyone who has difficulty with Tiger into a class of somewhat less competent users than users who have no difficulty is no more justifiable than those who see no good in Tiger. It is an OS; it is a noteworthy achievement of technology, and a tribute to those at Apple who produced it. But it is no more perfect a work of technological art than the space shuttle, which had it's problems. Tiger is better than anything anyone else has produced in it's class, but let us not get carried away.

I respect your knowledge, experience and expertise, and I continue to learn a lot from you, but this is not about proving anyone's point; it is about being open to each other and respecting each other's experience.

Thanks for being willing to share in this exchange.

c o r n e l i u s

PB G3 Pismo400, 100 GB 5400 Toshiba internal, 1 GB RAM Mac OS X (10.3.9) Beige G3 OS 8.6

Cornelius,

Don't get me wrong. I don't limit my comments only to users of Tiger. They apply to Panther, Jaguar, all the way to X Beta (I've installed and used all of them.) I've used almost all versions of OS X on Beige G3s, original and later iMacs, Pismo, TiPBs, Quicksilvers, AlPBs, Original G3 PB. I do have a little experience with OS X installations on a variety of hardware.

i've never made any assertions that Tiger is the best thing since sliced bread (actually I think Amiga OS 3.x was a better OS in many respects.) Whether Tiger runs as well or worse than Panther I can't say nor can you or most anyone else around here. No parameters of comparison have been defined nor have any controlled tests been run. From my own anecdotal experience I haven't seen that much difference one way or the other.

I did not say that everyone who has a problem with Tiger (or Panther or Jaguar or OS 9 for that matter) is an incompetent user. What I did say is that not all problems are caused by OS X (no version mentioned) but by operator error, e.g., 1. installing OS X on a corrupted hard drive; 2. upgrading OS X without repairing the drive or permissions; 3. trying to re-install the same version on top of another version rather than doing an Archive and Install; 4. not reading the instructions before plodding ahead; 4. not upgrading incompatible third-party software or hardware; and the list can go on.

I also specifically acknowledged that there are known problems with Tiger, and never suggested that either Tiger or OS X in general were "perfect" in any way. I'm not even sure I agree with you that OS X is all that "noteworthy" (after all it's really just a GUI on top of a modfied Unix) nor "better than anything anyone else has produced in its class." What are those other things in its class? As for comparing it to the space shuttle, I think I'd be more inclined to risk my life on the space shuttle working than risk my life on any operating system working.

I stand by my original comments. I think if you read them carefully you will see that you have read more into them than is there.

Thanks, Kappy. Got it.

cornelius

PB G3 Pismo400, 100 GB 5400 Toshiba internal, 1 GB RAM Mac OS X (10.3.9) Beige G3 OS 8.6