I've realised that my 6100 is rubbish... :-(

[The Macster]

If you don't get the same peculiar joy from running system 7.5 at 640x480 on a 14 inch that most of us do then maybe you should reassess your hobby of collectin' old Macs.

That's more the sort of thing I associate with something like an LC though - on a PowerMac that kind of thing just seems wrong! The 6100 gives neither the vintage fun that you might get from an old 68k PowerBook running OS 7.6 on a tiny screen, nor the 9/X performance that you might expect from a PPC.

I think possibly I'm more excited about Macs as a platform rather than just vintage ones per se, which is why I liked the 6100 when it was my best Mac and the only one that I could run OS 9 and all the PPC stuff on, but it's all G3 now as it's like a new Mac except that it can do all the old stuff as well as the new, which more recent Macs of course can't. I just don't find the older ones so enjoyable to use now I've experienced a G3 Mac, and not only are Macs like the 6100 slow etc, but the LC II that I'm keeping (I've promised the other one to a 68ker who's coming soon to take that and my old Mac monitor) seems to have stopped working! I'm half-tempted just to keep the PowerBooks and get rid of the rest, as they either don't work or are horribly slow/bad video outputs - another advantage of the G3 is that it generally works, while the older ones seem to all be dying now :'(

There seems to be loads of capacitor gunge under the LC's network card, which I presume is the problem (there's no battery in it but there never was and it used to work fine without one) - it started up with a chime a couple of times when I tried it and got to a happy Mac or a grey screen, and now it doesn't even chime, it just spins up the fan, reads the hard drive for a second or two and then sits there seemingly stuck. Also one time when it got to a grey screen or something (I can't remember whether it produced any video that time or not) it somehow jammed one of my Studio Displays ie it wouldn't turn off even after the Mac was turned off (the screen was dark but the backlight on) and I had to pull the plug out, and then I got weird patterns on the screen the next couple of times I switched it on - it seems OK now but if there's risk of that LC wrecking one of those screens then it's straight in the bin!

The thing is this: Your 6100 is a terriffic machine. Brilliant. However, your G3 is better, which is giving you the perception that the 6100 is crap, even though it isn't.

Yes, the way that a newer Mac can completely change your perception of another one is what interested me. Though I think it's debateable whether the 6100 is actually any good or not - perhaps when it was brand new it was better than the PCs of the day, I don't really know.

 

[Unknown_K]

It is somewhat difficult to judge a machine without looking at the period in time it was sold and knowing what the competition looked like at the time.

The 6100 was the 1st and low end of the 6100/7100/8100 line. Besides the small form factor I don't see a real use for a slow 601 powered hard to expand 6100. A 8100 would be a much better choice in my opinion, faster, more RAM, more room for expansion. The 601 chip in the 6100 is too slow to run emulated 68k code faster then a real 68k, and too slow to run later generations fo Mac OS that do run PPC code (unless you stuff a g3 in there and even then the SCSI speed slows the whole thing to a crawl).

 

[The Macster]

It is somewhat difficult to judge a machine without looking at the period in time it was sold and knowing what the competition looked like at the time.

Just out of interest then, for comparison, did the PCs of the day also max out at 640x480 with a decent colour depth or 800x600 at only 256 colours? Though of course upgrading an old PC with a better graphics card would be extremely easy, whereas parts like graphic cards for old Macs seem very hard to find in comparison, seemingly monopolised by greedy eBay sellers that want more than the entire Mac is worth for them

 

[Unknown_K]

It is somewhat difficult to judge a machine without looking at the period in time it was sold and knowing what the competition looked like at the time.

Just out of interest then, for comparison, did the PCs of the day also max out at 640x480 with a decent colour depth or 800x600 at only 256 colours? Though of course upgrading an old PC with a better graphics card would be extremely easy, whereas parts like graphic cards for old Macs seem very hard to find in comparison, seemingly monopolised by greedy eBay sellers that want more than the entire Mac is worth for them

March 1994 was when the 6100 was released. I know 1MB VLB video cards were standard starting in 1993 for the PC, 2MB should have been the norm in 94-95 when the 6100 was sold (some expandible to 4MB). 1024x768 at a decent color depth was not that hard to do on the PC when the 6100 was new. I don't know what the PDS video cards were priced for the 6100 back then, but I would guess a 2MB one would be more expensive then a 4MB PC card.

 

[alk]

1024x768 at a good bit depth (16- or 24-bits) was easily achieved on Macs of the same vintage. The mid range and high end Macs shipped with AV or HPV cards giving pretty good bit depths and VRAM between 1 MB and 4 MB.

Put into perspective that the 6100 was the low end (as has been stated already), so it's not terribly surprising, shocking, or even unexpected that the 6100 would only carry 640 kB of "VRAM" (okay, it's DRAM, but whatever).

Peace,

Drew

 

[cuvtixo]

It seems no one here has recommended MKLinux or Linux/PPC for Nubus?

http://nubus-pmac.sourceforge.net/

2.4 kernel

You can also put Yellow Dog Linux 3.x and later?, on a 7100 or even a 6100, but you need an mklinux bootloader and follow instructions carefully.

Linux is designed to increase the performance of older hardware. Unless you have specialized cards, I wouldn't even consider Mac OS 7 or 8. :b&w:

 

[paws]

Linux is designed to increase the performance of older hardware. Unless you have specialized cards, I wouldn't even consider Mac OS 7 or 8. :b&w:

Bollocks. There is no way at all you're going to get the speed and usability of System 7 with Linux + X11 on hardware of this vintage. Linux isn't designed to increase the performance of older hardware. It's not really designed for anything in particular, except for flexibility/configurability (and with a preference for server tasks). The only thing that makes it suitable for older hardware is that you can strip it right down.

 

[pee-air]

Bollocks. There is no way at all you're going to get the speed and usability of System 7 with Linux + X11 on hardware of this vintage. Linux isn't designed to increase the performance of older hardware. It's not really designed for anything in particular, except for flexibility/configurability (and with a preference for server tasks). The only thing that makes it suitable for older hardware is that you can strip it right down.

You will get great performance with Linux on old Mac hardware if you use the right software. I run Linux on an old PowerMac that I use as a server, and it runs circles around any classic Mac OS. Classic Mac OS makes for a lousy server of any kind.

There's another advantage to running Linux on old Mac hardware that you neglect to mention. Linux allows you to do things on an old Mac that just can't be done in Classic Mac OS. So Linux will actually give your old Mac hardware more functionality. Linux is also a thousand times more stable than Classic Mac OS.

I will agree however that Linux is dog slow on 68K Macs. *BSD is a much better choice for 68K Macs. Linux is a much better choice for older PPC hardware -- particularly older PCI-based PowerMacs.

Let me give you a personal example of how I use Linux on an old 7300/200 with 112MB of RAM.

I installed Debian 4.0 on the 7300 so that I could run it as an Apache webserver. Since it was running 24/7 as a webserver, I figured that I could just add a second ethernet card (nic) and use it as a router/firewall as well. So I did. I added a second ethernet card and installed Shorewall. I then had a 7300 that was acting as a webserver and a router, so I packed up my cheap little hardware router and stored it in the closet because I no longer needed it -- it was redundant.

I then realized that my 7300 was under utilized so I began looking for other things for it to do. I installed bind9 so that I could use the 7300 as a DNS server too. Now when I connect to other machines on my LAN, I don't have to remember IP addresses. I can just connect to each machine by its hostname.

My 7300 was still under utilized though. So I looked for more things for it to do. I don't like manually configuring network settings on my LAN machines, so I installed Open-dhcpd3. Now my 7300 is acting as a DHCP server as well. So I no longer have to screw around with entering network settings on any of the machines connected to my LAN. And it's very easy to configure DHCPd to give each machine the same IP address every single time. So I'm using DHCP to assign static IP addresses. It works very nice.

My 7300 was still under utilized though. So I looked for even more things for it to do. I installed ntpd so that my 7300 could be a time server. Now all of the computers on my LAN have synchronized clocks. Very cool. Using the networktime control panel, even my System 7 68K Macs set their clocks from the 7300.

I installed Squid on the 7300 too. So my 7300 also does double duty as a web cache for the machines on my LAN. It works quite well.

If I threw a larger hard drive in the 7300, I could run it as a file server too. But the paltry 2GB hard drive that's in it right now just wouldn't cut it as a file server. But still, for all of the things that my little 7300 does do, it does them with nary a hiccup.

 

[alk]

With the right software (MacDNS, IPNetRouter, Vicom Internet Gateway, others), you can do all those things in the Mac OS.

Peace,

Drew

 

[Unknown_K]

Linux is probably the worst choice for a Nubus PPC Mac, if Mac OS doesn't do what you need then junk the system and move on.

 

[alk]

Given that the only choices are Mac OS or Linux, then yeah, I'd have to say that Linux is probably the worst joice by virtue of it being a worse choice than the Mac OS and not having any other choices that are worse than Linux. ;-) That's not to say that it doesn't have it's own value.

Nevertheless, I think it makes more sense to run an operating system designed for the hardware. The Mac is niche enough as it is, and PowerPC Linux is even more niche. Now tack on a NuBus kernel and all the associated add-ons that are needed to get a NuBus PowerMac fully supported... It just sounds like trouble to me. I don't mean to discredit the fantastic work and effort put forth by the Linux crowd for NuBus Macs (or Macs in general), though. I can't deny that it is amazing work, and I support their efforts in the moral and emotional sense if not in the financial sense. But still... It seems that unless there is some very specific reason to run Linux on your Mac (curiosity, free software, modern compilers, etc), you're probably better off just running Mac OS on your Mac. Especially when you have a pretty good library of Mac software...

Peace,

Drew

 

[pee-air]

With the right software (MacDNS, IPNetRouter, Vicom Internet Gateway, others), you can do all those things in the Mac OS.
Peace,

Drew

With the right software? There are no decent http server packages for Classic Mac OS. The ones that do exist are slow and crippled. MacDNS, for all intents and purposes, is pretty much useless. Have you ever used Linux on a Mac?

 

[pee-air]

Linux is probably the worst choice for a Nubus PPC Mac, if Mac OS doesn't do what you need then junk the system and move on.

I've never used Linux on a Nubus PPC Mac, so I can't speak to that.

 

[pee-air]

Nevertheless, I think it makes more sense to run an operating system designed for the hardware. The Mac is niche enough as it is, and PowerPC Linux is even more niche.

Let's not lose our objectivity here. Linux is a great operating system. And I find it appalling that you would suggest that a person should just give up on their old hardware because their antiquated operating system can't quite cut the mustard any longer. If Linux can do what Mac OS can't, than Linux is the better choice.

Let's not forget that these machines are tools. If Linux is what is required to get the job done, then Linux is what you must use. Even if it requires a little bit of extra effort from the onset. Besides, Linux runs smooth as silk once you do get it up and running. At least, that has been my experience.

 

[Unknown_K]

You can find a P2/P3 K6 equipped X86 system on freecycle any given week (or ask for one) and it would be better for linux (and much easier to add cards to) then any Nubus PPC Mac would be.

Economically speaking if you need Linux you should get a better system for it for free.

Quite frankly if it wasn't for Nubus based video editing cards that need PPC I probably would not have a Nubus equipped PPC system at all. PCI and later PPC machines are just faster, have less issues, and cheaper to equip.

 

[alk]

Nevertheless, I think it makes more sense to run an operating system designed for the hardware. The Mac is niche enough as it is, and PowerPC Linux is even more niche.

Let's not lose our objectivity here.

Indeed! Perhaps you should follow your own advice. If you reread what I posted, you'll see that I personally think that if the Mac OS can do the job as well as Linux, then you should stick to the Mac OS. I did not say that you should _never_ run Linux (in fact, I gave a couple examples of why you would want to).

And as long as we're talking about objectivity, then please don't think you are being too objective by saying you'll get much more performance out of a 6100 web server running Apache versus MacHTTP, WebStar, or AppleShare IP because you are still using extremely low-end hardware. You might get a few more pages served, but in the big scheme of things, if you are really looking to optimize performance, you won't be using a 6100. :-/

Finally, you should know your audience. Being a new member, you probably don't know me well. Yes, I do run Linux on Macs. I have run MkLinux on a PowerBook 5300 (that was interesting but kind of pointless), YDL 2.x on a PowerTower Pro & beige G3, Mandrake on a Wallstreet and a Pismo, Ubuntu on an iMac, and I'm currently thinking about putting Debian on a 2400c. I also run Kubuntu on a Comcrap laptop, and I'm contemplating Aurora Linux on a couple of Sun boxen in my collection. So next time, maybe you should think before you jump to the attack...

Peace,

Drew

 

[pee-air]

Touche! BTW, I always think.

 

[bluekatt]

to awnser that question of yours if a 6100 with a G3 card is as fast as a real G3

the awnser is kind off

mine has a newertech 210 mhz G3 pds card

the moment the extension is loaded the machine flies and its slightly below the speed and feel of a rev A imac G3

to me then

 

[paws]

Pee-air -

I never said anything about running anything as a server. It would take a 6100 about a week of uptime to make to make the purchase of a faster, quieter system that could use IDE HDs and quite simply do more stuff the obvious choice, for wattage reasons. IMO anyone running a 6100 as a Linux server should trade it for a IIci and run BSD.

I use my 6100 (or did, when I had a monitor that worked) for running Rebirth 2 (a classic software synthesiser and drum machine with very modest resource requirements) and various other music related applications. The Mac's audio output has a very appealing lo-fi quality to it, as does most Macs of this vintage. That's one of the reasons I like mine so much.

Linux is, of course, useless for this, as the applications don't exist, certainly none that will run on olde hardware. It's an adequate server OS, obviously, but for any kind of desktop system, with a GUI, on a 6100 - which is what I was thinking of -, you'd have to be very seriously dogmatic to recommend MkLinux over System 7.

 

[Maccess]

The 6100 is rubbish as Apple shipped most base configurations without the AV Card.. But it's small, compact and can take a lot of upgrades.

Install 8.1 if you're not going to add a G3 card, and 9.1 if you'll be addign a G3 card.

The most important upgrade is RAM, the second is an HPV/AV card. The AV card or the 8100 HPV card is the best, it can be upgraded to 4MB of RAM.

If you don't have the right angle mounting bracket and board, get a G3 accelerator which performs the same function as the board.

You'll still need to find a frame. You can use the frame from a 610/6100 DOS Card, but you'll need to remove one of the studs on the horizontal plane as it interferes with the AV Card.

SCSI drives can be hard to find, but with a SCSI>IDE Adaptor from Acard, you can use any IDE hard drive even beyond 128 GB.

The 6100 can take as much RAM as the 8100. 256MB+8MB on board.

That's almost twice as much as the 7100 because it uses the same controller as the 8100.

Check out this link for an extensive review of the upgrades for a 6100.

http://www.kan.org/6100/

Here's another site in Japanesewith a museum quality fully upgraded 6100. Good pictures even if you can't read the Japanese.

You can't add USB but you can use many devices that you'd need USB devices for: Memory cards can be read with a SCSI card reader, USB printers can be attached to a network host (either a PC running Ghostscript, which shows up as a LaserWriter in the chooser, or another Mac running USB printer sharing, or a printer sharing device, which is built into some models of network routers). Similarly USB hard drives can be connected through a network host (another computer or a Linksys router with StorageLink).

Network drives will also work.