That may explain it, I have this ongoing issue with copying-and-pasting from a Word for Windows document whereby when I paste, the font gets changed over to something completely different. And it's a font that doesn't even appear in either the Windows doc or the Mac doc! So weird, and it doesn't always happen.
Apple MAC
- Thread starter Photoboy
- Start date
I would guess the bottleneck is the hard drive, see if it can be replaced by a 128gb SSD for boot and apps and attach an external fw drive for storage.
My first response is to up your ram. 4 gigs is NOT enough to run OS X, even 3-5 years when I was running my first MBP I immediately swapped the default 4 gigs out for 8 gigs. I don't know what your iMac can hold but I would look into putting in enough memory for at least 8 gigs if not more.
As for an SSD, it's a very pricey option right now but it will be less expensive next year. RAM is what your iMac needs now.
As for an SSD, it's a very pricey option right now but it will be less expensive next year. RAM is what your iMac needs now.
WTF .....FFS!!!
When did OS X become a WORSE resource HOG than Windows???....:Eek:
One of the big sales spiels you always used to here at Apple Store is how OS X runs soooooo much better than M$. What you post goes counter to all that!
Vista and W7 run fine with 4GBs of RAM. Adding more RAM is just icing on the cake but not necessary. Vista is a resource hog but W7 runs leaner.
Linux OTOH runs better/leaner than Vista and W7 with 4GBs because it is more efficient than them both. Adding more RAM is also more icing on the Linux cake but not necessary.
A Mac, like Windows, accumulates JUNK files that slow it down over time. Same thing happens to Linux I've discovered.
With Windows, to remedy this I used to format and reinstall Windows. This would make the PC as fast as the day it was new again, because all the crap was removed.
With Linux I would see things slow down after a couple years when staying with Karmic Koala 9.10 for a longer than usual amount of time because KK just ran so good. Plus I had tweaked KK quite a bit and would have to do the same on the newer version. Usually with Linux you update to the newest version after a year or two and installing the new Linux version cleanses out all the junk files that had been accumulating, so this doesn't become that much of an issue.
With Linux there is BleachBit, which is like CCleaner in Windows to clean out the crap and junk. You have to install 2 apps: BleachBit and BleachBit as Administrator, found in the Linux repositories and run them every couple months to clear out the crap that builds up just like in Windows and all will be fine.
Not that familiar with OSX but perhaps since OSX is closely related to Linux, there is a chance BleachBit may work on your Mac......unless they have some similar app of their own.
HUGE fucking scam from Apple charging so much for memory!!! $650 is a fucking joke!!
buying your own memory can be had for as cheap as $45 for 8GB(2x4GB) so for $90 your filling your 4 slots with 16GB
but then of course some machines the memory is not accessible for the do it yourselfer which is also a joke!
http://www.canadacomputers.com/index.php?cPath=24_309
There is a key-stroke short cut to force quit so that you need not have to make it up to that apple on the top. Take note of it next time you put your cursor there. Also, you can just click on any region of the desktop that is exposed behind the active window program that will often allow you easy access to that apple when getting that round color-ball funny cursor thing.
I've been using Mac's OSX for 8 years now and I think I've only had to restart the computer twice due to a system-wide crash. Programs--Safari especially--may crash, but easy to force quite and not affect anything else I'm doing.
I've been using Mac's OSX for 8 years now and I think I've only had to restart the computer twice due to a system-wide crash. Programs--Safari especially--may crash, but easy to force quite and not affect anything else I'm doing.
Look, you know about the solution, just go do it and be happy for another 3-4 years. And as b4u points out, it's not $650 and it should be relatively easy to put the memory sticks in yourself.
As for the question of why Apple does what it does? It's because they give you the lowest denominator when it comes to memory. What happens if you're like some people who don't do more than boot up the machine and just answer some emails? Would you be willing to pay a higher price for a machine with more memory than you will ever use? No. That's why they sell you a machine that you can upgrade yourself to some extent.
As for the question of why Apple does what it does? It's because they give you the lowest denominator when it comes to memory. What happens if you're like some people who don't do more than boot up the machine and just answer some emails? Would you be willing to pay a higher price for a machine with more memory than you will ever use? No. That's why they sell you a machine that you can upgrade yourself to some extent.
Who said anything about OS X being a worse resource hog than Win 7? In my experience, I just don't think 4 gigs is enough. But, then, I am a more intensive user than most people.
MS says that the minimum system requirements for 64-bit Win 7 is 4 gigs but once you start up more and more programs of course you're going to need more memory. Only a fool will deny that.
As for Ubuntu, I was surprised a couple of years ago to see how FAT it has gotten over its lifetime. I first used it five years ago and the requirements keep going up. These days, older machines from 10 years ago or more will need more graphics oomph and/or more ram itself in order to run the standard install.
https://help.ubuntu.com/community/Installation/SystemRequirements
MS says that the minimum system requirements for 64-bit Win 7 is 4 gigs but once you start up more and more programs of course you're going to need more memory. Only a fool will deny that.
As for Ubuntu, I was surprised a couple of years ago to see how FAT it has gotten over its lifetime. I first used it five years ago and the requirements keep going up. These days, older machines from 10 years ago or more will need more graphics oomph and/or more ram itself in order to run the standard install.
https://help.ubuntu.com/community/Installation/SystemRequirements
nibs is Wrong Again.....
You state 4 gigs is not enough.
Ubuntu STILL runs leaner than W7, didn't get FAT at all.
Note Ubuntu requires less RAM than W7, from YOUR above link:
Bottom Line:
OS X requires 4-8 GB RAM
W7 requires 1 GB RAM (32-bit) or 2 GB RAM (64-bit)
Ubuntu 11.04 requires 512 MiB RAM
You did!
You state 4 gigs is not enough.
WRONG AGAIN!!!
WRONG AGAIN!!!
Ubuntu STILL runs leaner than W7, didn't get FAT at all.
Note Ubuntu requires less RAM than W7, from YOUR above link:
Bottom Line:
OS X requires 4-8 GB RAM
W7 requires 1 GB RAM (32-bit) or 2 GB RAM (64-bit)
Ubuntu 11.04 requires 512 MiB RAM
Please point to where I said that OS X is a worse resource hog than Win 7. As I clarified, in post #57, in MY experience, it is not enough but that is because MY experience means having tons of windows open on my system along with Safari taking up too much memory.
If you're trying to tie that into what MS wrote about Win 7's requirements and making an argument that I am saying that OS X is more of a resource hog, no, that is putting words into my mouth.
As for Ubuntu Linux getting fatter, yes, it has. Please don't try to deny this because you are deliberately leaving out what the link says later on:
Also, a simple Google search will show that I am not the only who's noticed that Ubuntu is getting fatter.
http://brainstorm.ubuntu.com/idea/4447
http://www.valsera.net/index.php/blog-en/tag/linux.html
If you're trying to tie that into what MS wrote about Win 7's requirements and making an argument that I am saying that OS X is more of a resource hog, no, that is putting words into my mouth.
As for Ubuntu Linux getting fatter, yes, it has. Please don't try to deny this because you are deliberately leaving out what the link says later on:
The above would probably mean that your old Gateway machine will not run the latest Ubuntu Linux in all of its glory without being upgraded.
Also, a simple Google search will show that I am not the only who's noticed that Ubuntu is getting fatter.
http://brainstorm.ubuntu.com/idea/4447
http://www.valsera.net/index.php/blog-en/tag/linux.html
It takes up too much memory because it is a FARKING HOG!.....FFS!
HOGS eat up RAM!
Just relying what YOU said.....
WRONG AGAIN nibs!
When I started using Ubuntu ~5 yrs ago it required 256 MiB RAM.
Today it requires 512 MiB RAM and remains the most efficient leanest running OS!....
But, I never said that OS X is a worse resource hot than Win 7 did I?
So, it has gotten fatter then? I mean, it now needs a 100% increase in RAM. Right? You do know that if you need a 100% increase in resources it means that the program has gotten fatter, right?
WOW are you SLOW or what???
W7 needs 1-2 GB RAM
OS X needs 4-8 GB RAM
Believe THIS defines a HOG, eh???
Ubuntu doesn't even require 1 gig of RAM yet!!!
LMAO!!!!
Now you use fuzzy numbers like your sidekick bottie.....FFS!!!
So over 5 yrs Ubuntu went from 256 megs of RAM to 512 megs!
While in that same time frame OS X bloated/pigged out to needing 4-8 GB RAM!!!
Looks like OS X is the fattest pig in the poke, no???....
M$ only went up to 1-2 GB RAM in that same time frame...
Your the one with reading comprehension issues who can't even read farking system reqs!!! No wonder you use a Mac designed for the tech challenged who need a KISS OS!....
Right, one last thing, in case anyone is in danger of being mislead by WoodPeckr and, to some extent by my experience, here are the system requirements listed by Apple for their latest version of OS X:
http://www.apple.com/macosx/specs.html
nibs is kinda befuddled it seems.....
You are DOING the misleading nibs!!!!!!!!
I only pointed out verbatim what YOU posted!!!....
LMAO!!!
You are DOING the misleading nibs!!!!!!!!
I only pointed out verbatim what YOU posted!!!....
