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

Can Anyone Provide Any Information On This "Prototype" Power Macintosh 6360?

Phipli

Well-known member
Interesting, also reading my previous post I forgot to mention that RCA input card disables all video output from the machine I had to remove it to get an image lol. But I wonder what this could be clocked too?
The RCA card shouldn't make any difference.

WRT Over clocking your machine, 6x looks like the max, so you'd desolder the 40MHz crystal Oscillator and replace it with a socket, then get a collection of crystals between 40 and 50MHz and test to see how fast it remains stable, then back off a few %. This would be raising the bus speed, rather than the multiplier.

Personally, you have the fastest 6360 out there with a stock board, and its special. I wouldn't change it.

If I did want a faster 6360, I'd just put a 6500 board in it rather than messing about soldering.
 

jajan547

Well-known member
The RCA card shouldn't make any difference.

WRT Over clocking your machine, 6x looks like the max, so you'd desolder the 40MHz crystal Oscillator and replace it with a socket, then get a collection of crystals between 40 and 50MHz and test to see how fast it remains stable, then back off a few %.

Personally, you have the fastest 6360 out there with a stock board, and its special. I wouldn't change it.

If I did want a faster 6360, I'd just put a 6500 board in it rather than messing about soldering.
Oh I'm not gonna mess with anything on this board, but should I recap it?
 

Phipli

Well-known member
But I wonder what this could be clocked too?
I did that daft thing where I didn't actually answer you.

I usually find 20% is a reasonable maximum, but it varies chip to chip. 288MHz is 20%, which would be done using a 48MHz crystal.
 

jajan547

Well-known member
I did that daft thing where I didn't actually answer you.

I usually find 20% is a reasonable maximum, but it varies chip to chip. 288MHz is 20%, which would be done using a 48MHz crystal.
That's insane on these boards haha be neat to see though.
 

cheesestraws

Well-known member
No debugger system

The debugger you've posted screenshots of here is Macsbug, which can be installed on pretty much any version of the OS. It isn't a special OS feature—likely installed by whoever was using it previously, especially if they were using it for dev stuff.
 

jajan547

Well-known member
The debugger you've posted screenshots of here is Macsbug, which can be installed on pretty much any version of the OS. It isn't a special OS feature—likely installed by whoever was using it previously, especially if they were using it for dev stuff.
oh I know that I’m talking about on boot up, I’ll take a photo when I get the drive back.
 

MrFahrenheit

Well-known member
Yeah but because it's a prototype board I'd like a professionally done job that looks nice.

For longevity, and for an original look, I recommend OS-CON capacitors. They are dry like a tantalum, have a longer life, and they have the original “can” look.

As for “System 7.7”, I’m not sure why everyone is going goofy over it possibly supporting more machines than OS 8.0 did. It *is* Mac OS 8. It’s an alpha build of 8 before the numbering was changed. That’s all.

In fact, running an alpha of 7.7 for more than just tinkering could cause problems. In those early days of “8” many problems and bugs were present that caused hard disks to become corrupted just from use, for example.

As for the 7.7 build you have being something that’s not out there, that part *is* cool and should be investigated.
 

Phipli

Well-known member
As for “System 7.7”, I’m not sure why everyone is going goofy over it possibly supporting more machines than OS 8.0 did. It *is* Mac OS 8. It’s an alpha build of 8 before the numbering was changed. That’s all.
Because dropping support was a decision, not a baked in outcome. 8.0 will run on an 030, and yes it makes no difference because you can patch it about, but when someone says they have an alpha of OS 8, and the main changes were dropping support for 030s and adding HFS+... I'll ponder about one of those :)
 

MrFahrenheit

Well-known member
Because dropping support was a decision, not a baked in outcome. 8.0 will run on an 030, and yes it makes no difference because you can patch it about, but when someone says they have an alpha of OS 8, and the main changes were dropping support for 030s and adding HFS+... I'll ponder about one of those :)

Everyone today can download 7.7 a2c5, which is Alpha 2, candidate 5. The 7.7 that’s being talked about here is just listed as “a2”.

If a2c5 doesn’t boot a 68030 Mac without “hacking help”, then this “a2” likely won’t either.

I do get checking out all of the bits found on an internal prototype Mac. Especially if there are software bits that have never surfaced in public. I am just as excited.

However, this release candidate being so close to the already made public a2c5, hardware support is likely going to be exactly the same. What makes it all interesting is the extra software bits included on the drive or with the release.

If I could only find my Apple CDs in the garage, I could rip and upload MANY internal Apple builds that I had access to, for people to dig into and check out. Sadly, the larger corner of stacked large and heavy boxes has daunted me, especially since it gets really hot here, to the point of feeling dead when inside a garage. When it’s cool, it rains, which doesn’t help sorting through stuff.

On a side note, I have a complete set of Nautilus CDs as I subscribed to them for many years, and almost none of those are found online. If I could just find my treasure we could all have exciting bits and bytes.

In short, don’t get me wrong: I am excited about the software found on this prototype. I just don’t think it will run on anything that a2c5 already does/doesn’t.
 

jajan547

Well-known member
Everyone today can download 7.7 a2c5, which is Alpha 2, candidate 5. The 7.7 that’s being talked about here is just listed as “a2”.

If a2c5 doesn’t boot a 68030 Mac without “hacking help”, then this “a2” likely won’t either.

I do get checking out all of the bits found on an internal prototype Mac. Especially if there are software bits that have never surfaced in public. I am just as excited.

However, this release candidate being so close to the already made public a2c5, hardware support is likely going to be exactly the same. What makes it all interesting is the extra software bits included on the drive or with the release.

If I could only find my Apple CDs in the garage, I could rip and upload MANY internal Apple builds that I had access to, for people to dig into and check out. Sadly, the larger corner of stacked large and heavy boxes has daunted me, especially since it gets really hot here, to the point of feeling dead when inside a garage. When it’s cool, it rains, which doesn’t help sorting through stuff.

On a side note, I have a complete set of Nautilus CDs as I subscribed to them for many years, and almost none of those are found online. If I could just find my treasure we could all have exciting bits and bytes.

In short, don’t get me wrong: I am excited about the software found on this prototype. I just don’t think it will run on anything that a2c5 already does/doesn’t.
I couldn’t get a2c5 to work on any of my machines except a LC475 and a Quadra 950, both booted but loaded the background with no icons then everything just locked up so safe to say it’s pretty much not gonna run on anything in my opinion, of course who knows if this new image @Johnnya101 is working on will work with these machines but I’ve been trying and even tried some enablers and hacks but nothing seems to boot the Macintosh repository image of a2c5 “Speedy”
 
Top