• Hello, Guest! Welcome back, and be sure to check out this post for more info about the recent service interruption and migration.

6100 - SCSI2SD v6-worthy?

paws

Well-known member
I don't have OS 8 on anything. My 7100 (my best Mac friend at the moment) is on 7.6.1, mostly for the look, and my Lombards and Sawteeth are on 9.2.2. Is it really significantly heavier than, say, 8.6? I feel like very few things were taken away in those last few years, not in the same way that I feel 7.6.1 has a style that fits an early PPC better than Platinum. I also have a 7.6.1 installation that I've been copying across hard drives since it was current so I'm kind of attached to it.

More on topic, I actually just bought a SCSI2SD v6 for the 7100, to replace (for reasons of physical fit, mostly) a CF->IDE->SCSI chain. I'd like to do some benchmarks, are there any tools or is it just copying files across and using a stop watch?

 

Cory5412

Daring Pioneer of the Future
Staff member
and my Lombards and Sawteeth are on 9.2.2. Is it really significantly heavier than, say, 8.6?


IME, no. That said, I tend (as mentioned above) to favor 8.1 on anything not a fast 604/e/ev or G3. It works for me since I'm usually running 7-era or 7-friendly software anyway. The 9-era software I like and want all tends to require a G3 in particular (Dreamweaver MX for example) so I just... run that under 9.2.2 on my G3s, which are fast enough to absorb any performance penalties 9.2.2 might impose over, say, 8.6.

I would largely argue that most of the reasons to run 8.5 or 8.6 are:

  • You have personal nostalgia for it, specifically
  • You have a technical requirement for some app that runs on 8.6 but not 9.1 and you have a machine fast enough to justify 8.6 over 8.1.



By way of benchmarks, I discovered this: Classic Mac OS Benchmarks and Comparisons - System 7 Today which has probably been online since like 2005 or so when S7T first launched, but it was interesting. These things aren't particularly great "benchmarks" but they are good indicators.

One of these days I'll see if I can do the MacBench 4 tests which I was recollecting above on something like my 8600/300, which is fast enough that even if 9.1 is absorbing some of the potential application performance, it's not noticeable or meaningfully bad in day-to-day use.

I'll also get my numbers for the 6100 and 6200 out and see about writing those down somewhere I can get to them so I can remembe rthem more easily. I might make a "which OS version?" page on my personal wiki.

Disk drivers: I found it not an issue when running newer disk drivers with old Mac System versions. I mostly used the disk setup utilities of System 8.5-9.0.4 also even for 68k Macs running System 7.6.1.  


That's actually a great point, @LaPorta - I'm sorry if I missed this, how did you end up prepping the volume on the SCSI2SD? (Or do you even have one installed yet?)

I used LaCie Silverlining, a version from 1998 or 1999, on my scsi2sd v6 in the 8600, I didn't even bother setting the properties to try to pretend to be an Apple-approved disk, I just left the device name as default and Silverlining worked great. I did have to boot off of another device (CD would work), then get access to the Silverlining app (I put it on a Zip disk but putting it on an AppleShare server would be fine) and then run the installation. I think the 9.1 media did a further update on the driver, but I'm not 100% on that part.

 

LaPorta

Well-known member
Actually, my SCSI2SD question was theoretical and for the future. The original 500 MB HD works just fine, and that is what is in there now. So, regrettably, that is not the issue :(.

 

dan.dem

Well-known member
About OS 8.x failing to install on your 6100: I don't know what the installer is doing when it fails just before finishing, but since it complains about not enough memory, I would try changing the RAM _types_. As you will be aware, a 6100 accepts both FPM and EDO RAM sticks. Apple supplied only FPM, AFIK.

Also, as I mentioned before, you may try another freshly burned OS-Installer disk from another source than your original one.

About the "Classic Mac OS Benchmarks and Comparisons - System 7 Today : The differences regarding UI tests are smaller than I remember that it _felt_ back in that days. Probably the more advanced 8600 that was used for the tests with its larger caches is more fit to run the later OS-versions. Differences may be higher when tested on a 601/603-equipped NuBus-Mac.

Perceived speed differences (i.e. GUI) between System 8.5 to 9.x: I remember them being just gradually. When we updated the Rev B bondy iMac (then 96 MB RAM), I remember a small difference, 8.6 feeling just a little slower, and slightly more so when we transitioned to 9.0.4. But we noticed that the USB related crashes (rarely but they happened during printing or hot-plugging USB devices) went away with Mac OS 9. OS 9 needed virtual memory turned on when used with only 96 MB or RAM. But this was no big deal, since it was the first time virtual memory on a Mac worked well for me. Before it was often seen as a big performance disadvantage. I remember all graphic artists I knew turning it off in the early/mid 1990s. They used real hardware memory instead, which became more and more affordable - unless bought from Apple directly (as you are forced nowadays :disapprove: - mostly).

I'll also get my numbers for the 6100 and 6200 out and see about writing those down somewhere I can get to them so I can remembe rthem more easily. I might make a "which OS version?" page on my personal wiki.
This would be great!

 
Top