Assembling the Fastest OS 9 Machine

[avw]

I´d like you to help with your great experiance to virtually assemble the fastest OS 9 machine ever. Interresting is to clear some questions regarding the most powerful possibilities. I´ll update this post after your suggestions.

Prozessor:

MAXPower G4 with a 2GHz 7448 prozessor seems to be the fastest availaible OS9 possibility. I heard that OS 9 cannot use the power of a second prozessor (is that approved?), so the dual 1,8 GHz from Powerlogix or Sonnettech are no options for OS 9?

Motherboard:

Quicksilver G4 because of the 133MHz System-Bus. Is there a big difference to QS 2002 to take that model? Why is there no Prozessor upgrade for 167MHz systembus-models?

Graphic 3D:

Seems to be the GeForce4 Ti graphics card with 128 MB DDR-Ram, which got the best 3D performance for OS 9. Later ATI Models don´t 3D at OS 9 at all, and 9200 is not as powerful like GeForce4 Ti. Am I right?

Graphics 2D:

In fact I didn´t realize a big difference (in 2D) when I swiched from my Village Tronic Mac Picasso 540 (4MB) to a Voodoo 5500 (64MB) back in 2002. So what´s the card with fastest 2D performance? I read somwhere that still the Formac ProFormance III is the choice, and much better than any ATI or GeForce?

Ram:

1,5 GB

Is there really no possibility to use more? For example as Ramdisk?

Harddisk:

Seems to be still a SCSI-Raid with some 15k drives, Fujitsu Allegro 9 (3,3ms) for example? (ouch this is loud). Do SATA-Raids reach this performance?

Others, ...

If someone would be verry rich we could think about an SATA Ramdisc with 16 or 32 GB DDR Ram as "work volume". Acard is offering such things for $ 500 up.

Your suggestions:

...

 

[waynestewart]

Sonnet lists an upgrade for the Mirrored Drive Door. The higher Buss speed will make a difference plus faster RAM AGP slot etc.

Wayne

 

[avw]

Sonnet lists an upgrade for the Mirrored Drive Door.

Yes, but the 2nd processor can´t be used by OS 9. That´s what I read at different places. It will fit, it will work, but buying an Dual G4 for OS 9 resoults in using just one CPU. (But I´m wondering what earlier Dual-Macs did with 8.6 or 9.0.4 for example?)

The higher Buss speed will make a difference plus faster RAM AGP slot etc.

Both Quicksilver and Quicksilver 2002 heave 133MHz System Bus Speed, also like PC133 SDRam. Are there other differences why you would take a later QS model?

 

[MacJunky]

QS2002 can use HDDs larger than 128GB on the internal PATA buses.. but that is about it as far as I know and it does not do you much good if you want SATA or SCSI RAID.

 

[Trash80toHP_Mini]

Sonnet lists an upgrade for the Mirrored Drive Door.

Yes, but the 2nd processor can´t be used by OS 9. That´s what I read at different places. It will fit, it will work, but buying an Dual G4 for OS 9 resoults in using just one CPU. (But I´m wondering what earlier Dual-Macs did with 8.6 or 9.0.4 for example?)

The higher Buss speed will make a difference plus faster RAM AGP slot etc.

Both Quicksilver and Quicksilver 2002 heave 133MHz System Bus Speed, also like PC133 SDRam. Are there other differences why you would take a later QS model?

I've never heard that any particular, fairly modern, OS can't utilize dual/multiple processors. NEVER believe (without checking multiple reliable sources) what you've "read at different places" on the web.

IIRC, it's the availability of multi-threaded (?) software (apps) that pose the problem for multiple processors under any OS. Are you certain that something like Photoshop doesn't utilize dual procs under OS9? I'd almost bet that there are some packages that will. As you said yourself, Apple offered multi-proc systems under earlier OS releases, that's a sure sign that something probably utilizes of them.

Listen to the man, a faster system bus speed, RAM bus speed, etc. will always make a HUGE difference in overall system performance.

I'm, slowly, getting a QS'02 Dual 1 GHz system up and running under OS 9 only myself. At some point I'll probably snag the later Dual 1.25 GHz (dunno if it was a QS or MDD offhand, it doesn't really matter to me) that was the fastest/last Native 9 System ever offered by Apple.

It sounds like you're setting up a system for older graphics apps, which is exactly why I'm setting one up. I've got all the peripherals I need for "Living in an OS 9 World" (a topic I'm planning to post when my new toy is fully (maybe even relatively) functional, now that I've picked up a Nikon CoolScan from that era. I have boxes full of licensed Graphics, CAD/CAM and Productivity software/docs for OS 9.

. . . and lots of boxes of slides and negatives to work my way through. :-/

Keep us posted on your progress, but slow it down a bit and make sure your research is thorough, comrade.

jt: speed pusher/hacker of obsolescent Macs from waaaaay back in the day! = 8-o

 

[MacJunky]

Sonnet lists an upgrade for the Mirrored Drive Door. The higher Buss speed will make a difference plus faster RAM AGP slot etc.

DA, QS and MDD all have 4x AGP.

 

[waynestewart]

Sonnet lists an upgrade for the Mirrored Drive Door.

Yes, but the 2nd processor can´t be used by OS 9. That´s what I read at different places. It will fit, it will work, but buying an Dual G4 for OS 9 resoults in using just one CPU. (But I´m wondering what earlier Dual-Macs did with 8.6 or 9.0.4 for example?)

The second processor wouldn't be used much outside of photoshop but if you want maximum speed then sometimes you have to make sacrifices like having a processor that's not often used.

The higher Buss speed will make a difference plus faster RAM AGP slot etc.

Both Quicksilver and Quicksilver 2002 heave 133MHz System Bus Speed, also like PC133 SDRam. Are there other differences why you would take a later QS model?

I forgot, there's only 4x AGP slot in a MDD but a number of the OS 9 bootable MDDs have 167mhz bus speeds and DDR RAM and ATA 100. Having a faster processor on a slow bus is limiting. If the processor has to wait while it moves data in and out of RAM then it's spending time sitting idle.

I do a bit of Mac collecting and like upgrade machines. Sometimes an older machine with a processor upgrade has a faster processor than a newer machine but the newer machine has a higher bus speed and faster RAM and runs circled around the supposedly faster older machine

Wayne

 

[avw]

I've never heard that any particular, fairly modern, OS can't utilize dual/multiple processors. NEVER believe (without checking multiple reliable sources) what you've "read at different places" on the web.

Read that: http://eshop.macsales.com/item/PowerLogix/PF47D1500C/ at the bottom the point "System Requirements" and that: http://lowendmac.com/reviews/08rev/maxpower-1.8-ghz-single.html at "Classic Mac OS Benchmarks" first paragraph. As I told, I´m not absoluteley sure, that´s why I´m asking here. So if someone can tell what OS 9 is doing with a Dual G4, ... ?

Are you certain that something like Photoshop doesn't utilize dual procs under OS9? I'd almost bet that there are some packages that will. As you said yourself, Apple offered multi-proc systems under earlier OS releases, that's a sure sign that something probably utilizes of them.

I´m not certain, but I´d like to heave informations Maybe you are right, ...

Listen to the man, a faster system bus speed, RAM bus speed, etc. will always make a HUGE difference in overall system performance.

Maybe my english is too bad, but that´s what I said at my first posting: QS because of the higher System Bus Speed of 133 MHz, ... ?

It sounds like you're setting up a system for older graphics apps,

I´m setting up nothing at the moment. I´m happy with my 9600 G4 800. It´s only virtual at the moment - for really seeing my upgrade possibilities for the next decade

which is exactly why I'm setting one up. I've got all the peripherals I need for "Living in an OS 9 World" (a topic I'm planning to post when my new toy is fully (maybe even relatively) functional,

Let me know, when you are ready.

but slow it down a bit and make sure your research is thorough, comrade.

Hey that´s exactly what I´m doing here, asking for further knowledge and informations about things I´m not absoluteley sure But I need people willing to share their knowledge, for example direct comparison of 32MB ProFormance with a 128MB GeForce4 Ti in 2D.

To tell it again, I´m asking about prooved knowledge not collective speculation

 

[avw]

a number of the OS 9 bootable MDDs have 167mhz bus speeds and DDR RAM and ATA 100. Having a faster processor on a slow bus is limiting.

None of the Prozessor Upgrades is listed(!) to work with a G4 with 167MHz System Bus speed. Not Powerlogix, not Sonnettech, not FastMac, Not Newertech, Not OWC, not GigaDesigns will work with 167MHz. Any other experiances? If yes, please tell me - thats the meaning of that thread!

 

[bluekatt]

why you want an os 9 only machine is beyond me

but the last os 9 capabel machien apple offerd was the 2003 reintroduction of the 1,25 dual G4 MDD

 

[bluekatt]

a number of the OS 9 bootable MDDs have 167mhz bus speeds and DDR RAM and ATA 100. Having a faster processor on a slow bus is limiting.

None of the Prozessor Upgrades is listed(!) to work with a G4 with 167MHz System Bus speed. Not Powerlogix, not Sonnettech, not FastMac, Not Newertech, Not OWC, not GigaDesigns will work with 167MHz. Any other experiances? If yes, please tell me - thats the meaning of that thread!

what exactly do you need an upgrade for on a 1,25 or 1,42 ghz MDD ?

that machine on its own is already a monster especially if you have the 1,42 ghz version the speed difference between the 1,42 ghz and a 1,8 or 2,0 versions are neglicable

hunt down an MDD they are bette rmore versatile machines and are already mostly tricked out

id rather have an MDD then a QS

 

[avw]

why you want an os 9 only machine is beyond me

Simply because I don´t like OS X, and will never use it. And because I think that OS 9 is one of the most logical Operating Systems ever.

what exactly do you need an upgrade for on a 1,25 or 1,42 ghz MDD ?

The later MDD models cannot boot OS 9. the "reintroducions" was a kind of fake (you have to have OS X installed). And 2 GHz in comparison to 1 GHz makes a difference.
I´m simply asking for the most powerful OS 9 system. That´s all.

 

[waynestewart]

None of the Prozessor Upgrades is listed(!) to work with a G4 with 167MHz System Bus speed. Not Powerlogix, not Sonnettech, not FastMac, Not Newertech, Not OWC, not GigaDesigns will work with 167MHz. Any other experiances? If yes, please tell me - thats the meaning of that thread!

The early Sonnet MDD cards had a problem of sometimes setting the bus speed to 133 but that's supposed to be solved and the currant cards should run on a MDD with a bus speed of 167mhz

Wayne

 

[Mike Richardson]

There are a small handful of programs for OS 8.6 > 9.2.2 that make use of the second processor. Back in those days, apps had to make specific use of the second processor. If you ran two non-specific apps at the same time, they would both run on the first processor.

Photoshop made use of the second processor. Some plugins also made use of AltiVec. These two combined would smoke any PC setup back in the day.

 

[Unknown_K]

Someday I will also build the fastest OS 9.x native booting machine (most likely a single processor system). I have yet to bother since high end G4's still cost a few dollars and I am in no hurry to get one.

The fastest current PPC system I have is only a B&W with a G4-450 CPU upgrade (needed for a Matrox RTMAC setup I have). Some people love OSX, I just tolerate it when I need a more modern web browser (on both B&W's) but I mostly boot into OS 9. The 68K to PPC change still used the old GUI way, I just find OSX to be very un-mac like.

 

[Bunsen]

Dual CPUs under OS 9: short version.

The operating system itself will not use the second processor.

Some programs will - mostly Photoshop

 

[Floydy]

The fastest current PPC system I have is only a B&W with a G4-450 CPU upgrade (needed for a Matrox RTMAC setup I have).

When current, Matrox stated, RTMac was only compatible with an AGP equipped G4 - however, I fitted a G4 500MHz ZIF card into a B&W which worked reasonably well

Any 167mhz NON FW800 logic board from the MDD series that has a 1.42 DP card installed makes for an 'official' fastest OS 9 bootable Mac

I cobbled a MDD 1.42 DP together from various spares and fitted a Radeon 9600XT Mac & PC edition card (fairly rare but fanless with 256Mb RAM onboard).

This made for decent video performance in Leopard and overall this Mac performed equal to a PowerMac G5 1.8 Uni I have had since new

 

[Anonymous Freak]

Prozessor: MAXPower G4 with a 2GHz 7448 prozessor seems to be the fastest availaible OS9 possibility. I heard that OS 9 cannot use the power of a second prozessor (is that approved?), so the dual 1,8 GHz from Powerlogix or Sonnettech are no options for OS 9?

As Bunsen so elegantly summarized: OS 9 (and earlier) cannot, itself, make use of a second processor. But some applications (such as Photoshop,) can. If you are not using an app that specifically makes use of a second processor, then it's going to waste.

Motherboard: Quicksilver G4 because of the 133MHz System-Bus. Is there a big difference to QS 2002 to take that model? Why is there no Prozessor upgrade for 167MHz systembus-models?

The 167 MHz bus models would be faster, especially the DDR-RAM-equipped MDD models. And Sonnet does make a dual-1.8 GHz upgrade that is compatible with the MDD models.

Graphic 3D:Seems to be the GeForce4 Ti graphics card with 128 MB DDR-Ram, which got the best 3D performance for OS 9. Later ATI Models don´t 3D at OS 9 at all, and 9200 is not as powerful like GeForce4 Ti. Am I right?

The GeForce4 Ti is the fastest OS 9 compatible video card.

Graphics 2D:In fact I didn´t realize a big difference (in 2D) when I swiched from my Village Tronic Mac Picasso 540 (4MB) to a Voodoo 5500 (64MB) back in 2002. So what´s the card with fastest 2D performance? I read somwhere that still the Formac ProFormance III is the choice, and much better than any ATI or GeForce?

"2D" performance isn't all that different between high end video cards, other than for benchmarking. A GeForce4 Ti will be "fast enough" at 2D, while being the fastest at 3D.

Ram:1,5 GB

Is there really no possibility to use more? For example as Ramdisk?

The MDD models' hardware is capable of addressing 2 GB, but OS 9 is limited to 1.5 GB, period.

Harddisk:Seems to be still a SCSI-Raid with some 15k drives, Fujitsu Allegro 9 (3,3ms) for example? (ouch this is loud). Do SATA-Raids reach this performance?

A SCSI RAID would be fast, but a SATA RAID of SSDs would win, hands-down. Of course, I don't know of any SATA RAID cards that work in OS 9. Although even one single fast SATA SSD may very well be faster than all but a truly massive SCSI RAID (that would require external hard drives.)

Others, ...If someone would be verry rich we could think about an SATA Ramdisc with 16 or 32 GB DDR Ram as "work volume". Acard is offering such things for $ 500 up.

Yes, those are insanely fast; but modern SATA SSDs are almost as fast (the Intel X25-E can saturate the SATA bus both reading and writing, so even if the RAM-based one is theoretically faster, the SATA bus itself is the limiting factor.)

 

[johnklos]

An overclocked 1.42 GHz Mirrored drive door will probably be faster than a 7447a because the Apple processor has 2 megs of L3 cache in addition to 256k of L2 cache as compared with 512k of L2 and no L3 cache on the Sonnet processor card. Coupled with the 167 MHz DDR memory bus and ATA/100 bus, I doubt you'd find anything faster.

With regards to disk, I'd say get a fast 1.5 or 2 TB drive with a SATA to IDE adapter. The drives these days are capable of running a real, honest 100 MB/sec, so you're not really going to see anything faster in such a machine.