I recently got a SE/30 and installed a SCSI2SD which I created two separate hard drives. So I thought I would install system 6 and system 7 on each drive and just pick between them, which seems to work great. So my Mac SE now is feeling kind of redundant. It has system 6.0.8 on it and it got me thinking, would it be a good candidate for system 4 or 5? System 6 is the oldest system I have used, but I didn't know if there was any software that wouldn't run on system 6 where a system 4/5 may be useful?
-
Updated 2023-07-12: Hello, Guest! Welcome back, and be sure to check out this follow-up post about our outage a week or so ago.
Anyone run Mac System lower than 6?
- Thread starter lowlytech
- Start date
I don't personally tend to use System 6 a lot. I've got a Plus I may set up with system 6, but I'm unlikely to run older than that on it.
I had to look this up: the SE/30 appears to have shipped with System 6.0.3, so it might not run any lower system software versions.
The SE shipped with "3.3" (per everymac) so it should be suitable machine for running SSW 4 or 5 on it.
In terms of whether or not that would be relevant, I don't actually know. Likewise, 6 is the oldest version I've ever touched, and I haven't found software for Mac, that I want to use, that doesn't run on 6.
It can't hurt to try, though.
As to the SE feeling redundant: I get that. The next thing I'd probably try with the SE and SE/30 is some networking stuff. LocalTalk networking is relatively easy to do and you can transfer files, plus there are a few vintage Mac network games that might be fun to play.
I had to look this up: the SE/30 appears to have shipped with System 6.0.3, so it might not run any lower system software versions.
The SE shipped with "3.3" (per everymac) so it should be suitable machine for running SSW 4 or 5 on it.
In terms of whether or not that would be relevant, I don't actually know. Likewise, 6 is the oldest version I've ever touched, and I haven't found software for Mac, that I want to use, that doesn't run on 6.
It can't hurt to try, though.
As to the SE feeling redundant: I get that. The next thing I'd probably try with the SE and SE/30 is some networking stuff. LocalTalk networking is relatively easy to do and you can transfer files, plus there are a few vintage Mac network games that might be fun to play.
Thanks for the replies. I have gotten the SE/30 (no ethernet) and my centris 610 (which has ethernet) to talk over the localtalk connection successfully to transfer items that are stored on a local FTP server.
That may be a good idea to use the SE and /30 for co-op play one day.
Of course growing up in the 80's, shadowgate was a classic I have already tried on both the SE and /30. So far I have had no issues with Shadowgate with system 6.
Sounds kinda like I don't need to worry too much about something lower than system 6 unless I had no hard drive, etc.
To my amazement however I ran across a few posts that said some older games on the Mac don't like the 68030 cpu and worked better with the 68000. I honestly thought this was only something that plagued DOS. So it may be more of an issue of keeping the SE around for speed issues that occur with the SE/30 more than a system version issue.
That may be a good idea to use the SE and /30 for co-op play one day.
Of course growing up in the 80's, shadowgate was a classic I have already tried on both the SE and /30. So far I have had no issues with Shadowgate with system 6.
Sounds kinda like I don't need to worry too much about something lower than system 6 unless I had no hard drive, etc.
To my amazement however I ran across a few posts that said some older games on the Mac don't like the 68030 cpu and worked better with the 68000. I honestly thought this was only something that plagued DOS. So it may be more of an issue of keeping the SE around for speed issues that occur with the SE/30 more than a system version issue.
LaPorta
Well-known member
It works well with a whole range of Systems. 4.2 is simply what is on the original floppies. I prefer to play it from them for that old-school feel
.
Dog Cow
Well-known member
Some old games addressed the screen buffer directly, assuming its location. Later models of Macs have the screen at different locations in memory, causing those games to malfunction.
gryffinwings
Well-known member
Geez... I think my Macintosh SE FDHD is running System 2 dot something, I'll have to start it up later to verify, I don't think the original owners of this mac ever upgraded it to something newer.
gryffinwings
Well-known member
I stand corrected, I must have misremembered what was actually installed. However the chart is off slightly, mine has System 6.0.7 installed.The FDHD won't run SSW 2:
AlpineRaven
Well-known member
That chat cannot be right as well - I *think* I've had 6.0.4 on SE FDHD when I was testing out non-backlit Portable as I thought there was an issue and tested in SE.
Cheers
AP
Cheers
AP
Trash80toHP_Mini
NIGHT STALKER
Chart doesn't have to be wrong, you may be confusing "what will run" with "minimum requirements," what is supported and what the "maximum OS supported" might be. On one end machin/OS combo may appear to run fine, which doesn't mean it's doing so reliably enough for Apple to bother with support. At the other end, you can convince a Mac to wish it were newer hard enough to get a later version of the OS to appear to function just fine, but not reliably enough for Apple to support, much less encourage. The hardware/component feature sets move on, driving OS development.
OS is a series of waves moving through the ranks of available models, never stationary. Productive lifetimes of Machines survive whatever successive waves of OS are economically justified. In the beginning a machine is too new to bother testing, much less support the running of an older OS as some of the machine's shiny new features would go unsupported. Machine's release OS is tuned to their level or performance and how the new hardware works. As obsolescence approaches, OS level is a catch as catch can proposition for a machine. As it nears the bitter end of its useful life (application developers having long since phased out support for it) OS developers have to draw a line in the sand at some point.
IOW, the chart is in all likelihood correct. Exceptions prove rules.
OS is a series of waves moving through the ranks of available models, never stationary. Productive lifetimes of Machines survive whatever successive waves of OS are economically justified. In the beginning a machine is too new to bother testing, much less support the running of an older OS as some of the machine's shiny new features would go unsupported. Machine's release OS is tuned to their level or performance and how the new hardware works. As obsolescence approaches, OS level is a catch as catch can proposition for a machine. As it nears the bitter end of its useful life (application developers having long since phased out support for it) OS developers have to draw a line in the sand at some point.
IOW, the chart is in all likelihood correct. Exceptions prove rules.
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm reasonably certain Apple officially supported the Plus through 7.5.5. The chart is wrong. Especially given that the SE, SEfdhd, and Classic have [computationally] nearly identical hardware to the Plus.
Just because it doesn't work well doesn't mean it wasn't "supported."
Also: "Supported" in this case, because a Plus would have been up to approximately ten years old in that moment, doesn't strictly speaking mean that a user receives support from Apple, as much as that Apple says it will run, and tested some or all of the OS on that hardware.
The early end, I'm less confident in, but it seems weird the SE would run System 1.1 but the 512K and 512Ke wouldn't. Wikipedia lists the SE FDHD supporting system 4.0, and everymac lists it as supporting 3.3.
As it stands, Wikipedia lists "System 5" as having been released after the SE FDHD itself was, so that it'll only run 6 ("6.0.8", let alone the other versions, but) seems off.
Just because it doesn't work well doesn't mean it wasn't "supported."
Also: "Supported" in this case, because a Plus would have been up to approximately ten years old in that moment, doesn't strictly speaking mean that a user receives support from Apple, as much as that Apple says it will run, and tested some or all of the OS on that hardware.
The early end, I'm less confident in, but it seems weird the SE would run System 1.1 but the 512K and 512Ke wouldn't. Wikipedia lists the SE FDHD supporting system 4.0, and everymac lists it as supporting 3.3.
As it stands, Wikipedia lists "System 5" as having been released after the SE FDHD itself was, so that it'll only run 6 ("6.0.8", let alone the other versions, but) seems off.
tappdarden
Well-known member
the chart might be based on stock config
I booted a plus the other day into 7.5.5. but it had 4MB of ram. i *think* 7.0 needs at least 2MB ?
I booted a plus the other day into 7.5.5. but it had 4MB of ram. i *think* 7.0 needs at least 2MB ?
