Pros and Cons

[juan123]

Hey I have a Performa 6200CD with 64mb RAM and a 20gb HD partitioned into 2 partitions. Currently it has 7.6.1 and feels extremely buggy. I know this computer is a road apple and all that , but I'm just wondering, what OS should I install? I have install discs for 7.6, 8.1, and 9.1... Well I'd just like some advice in which I can get the most out of this machine, in usefulness and in speed. Thanks!

 

[equill]

Take a sticky(beak) at this piece. I don't know whether the MaUse group is still extant, but Michael Shaw certainly is, and it is entirely possible that he would respond to your query if that article and this one do not show you the direction in which to go.

As an aside, if 7.6.1 is not quick on the 6200CD with 64MB of RAM, the Mac is the limitation rather than the software, but 8.5-8.6 (all PPC code) may give it more verve. OS 8.1 has its proponents in this Army, too, and it will enable you to make economical use of your hard drive's storage (HFS+).

de

 

[Flash!]

You know I never found Sytem 7.6 that great. For the hit it takes on performance, when compared to 7.5, then you may as well go for OS8. So either downgrade or upgrade the OS in my opinion

 

[MacMan]

I would recommend 8.1. When my 5200, (basically a 6200 with built-in monitor), had its original motherboard I put OS 8.1 on it and it ran fine. Much more reliable than System 7 and it pretty much sorted out the machine's networking issues as well.

 

[equill]

... I never found Sytem 7.6 that great. For the hit it takes on performance, when compared to 7.5 ...

Horses for courses. With a 50MHz/128MB IIci, or a 33MHz/14MB PB180, as examples, I find that 7.6.1 behaves very quickly and elegantly indeed. On a Colour Classic it limps, and that outcome doesn't need labouring. 040-processor Macs I usually push to 8.1, for the reasons above, and I have no PowerPC of any colour running less than 8.6, and mostly 9.1 or 9.2.2, including G4/500MHz Beiges.

This is all part-and-parcel of coaxing the most out of our Macs, although it must be tempered with reality (RAM and expansion bus, mostly). It's to Apple's credit that many of its machines can be pushed far beyond their release configurations because that possibility was implicit in their designs. That's not to say that upgrading was designed into them, but it certainly wasn't designed out of them, either

de

 

[bluekatt]

in the abscence of you having an os 8 install cd ( which most people awnsering this thread seem to conviently forget for some reason ) go fo r 9.1

it might demand more ram and migh tnot run noticably faster but it will be a whole lot more stable ...as far as classic goes

 

[Unknown_K]

I say go 8.1, you could realy use a faster processor and more RAM for 9.1.

 

[equill]

in the abscence of you having an os 8 install cd ( which most people awnsering this thread seem to conviently forget for some reason ) go fo r 9.1

Users cannot install any System/OS if they don't have a source of it. Your point is not clear. The OP wrote that he has 7.6, 8.1 and 9.1, the latter pair of which are not only upgrades of reference releases but also were released as complete install discs, with RR and upgrade on the same CD.

de

Quote added to clarify who was being answered.

 

[Unknown_K]

Were there CD released with just the updates by Apple? All the 8.1 and 9.1 CDs I have seen were the complete install. Yes you can download the updates, but I am talking legit Apple media CDs.

Actualy the 8.1 CD I have is 8.0 with 8.1 update I think.

 

[LCGuy]

I don't know what happened over in other countries, but here in AU, Apple Australia used to put out "Apple Software Update" CDs, every few months, which you could be for $20 or so, and they'd contain the latest software updates for all Apple software. I have one that has the Mac OS 8.1 updater.

 

[The Macster]

Were there CD released with just the updates by Apple? All the 8.1 and 9.1 CDs I have seen were the complete install. Yes you can download the updates, but I am talking legit Apple media CDs.
Actualy the 8.1 CD I have is 8.0 with 8.1 update I think.

Yes, I have a 9.1 disc that is just an updater - it looks exactly the same as the retail 9.1 disc (white background, big orange "9" etc) except it says "Mac OS 9.1 Update CD" on it. I think the 9.1/9.2 update discs may have come with various versions of OS X as you needed the update for the Classic Environment to work (possibly the instant up-to-date packs, as the full retail versions of 10.0 and 10.1 came with a full 9 disc too).

I've never seen one of these discs containing all of the Apple updates though, only ones for specific OSes, so maybe they didn't have those over here.

 

[MacMan]

Some of the MacFormat, (UK mag), cover disks from the 1990's had System software updates on them, mainly for System 7. The two that come to mind are the 7.5.5 update and also that one, rare, CD that has a copy of System 7.5.3 on it.

I've got the majority of ones from about 1995 to 1998 - they also contain loads of useful freeware, shareware, browsers etc. All stuff that can now be gotten online with some hunting, but it's much easier if you have it already!

 

[Quadraman]

Honestly, I wouldn't bother with the 6200 at all. It doesn't matter which OS you run on it, it will still run like crap. There are far better Macs that you can get cheap or for free that won't give you any of the hassles of the x200 machines.

 

[QuadSix50]

PLEASE don't put 9.1 on that Mac. I did that on my parents' Performa 6220CD and it was DOG slow even though I maxed it to 64 MB. I haven't tried 8.5/8.6 on it, but I don't imagine it being any better (but I could be wrong). Mac OS 8.1 would be the max I would put on it and still maintain some performance, but if you can live without the quasi-preemptive-multitasking or HFS+ support then either 7.5.5 (which is free) or 7.6.1 (which you'd have to pay for) would be your option.

 

[juan123]

yeah ....I know....I picked up a 6500 with a 400mhz G3 upgrade in it....so fast. But the 6200 is just here and I want to use it for maybe old games and productive tasks like Word, excel, ppt, etc. I just find it slow even for these tasks...

 

[paws]

My dad, my brother and me bought a 6200 together back when they were new.

It's not a very good computer...

 

[Charlieman]

Some of the MacFormat, (UK mag), cover disks from the 1990's had System software updates on them, mainly for System 7. The two that come to mind are the 7.5.5 update and also that one, rare, CD that has a copy of System 7.5.3 on it.

Beware of the August 1994 MacFormat CD which contains two viruses (included WDEF). One of the MacUser UK CDs from the same period also has infections!

 

[dudejediknight]

I don't recall much of a speed difference between running 7.5 vs 8.5 on our 6200. Actually, I don't recall us having any problems with it at all. I know everyone else thinks they were such terrible machines, but for its time, our first Mac did what we needed it to do, and made enough of a good impression on us to keep buying Macs.

I remember that the monitor we got with it was a big problem for us... Multiple Scan 15, I believe. They would develop a case of the blues... literally. After the replacement one (through extended warranty) did the same thing, we went with a generic PC monitor and the appropriate adapter.

The 6200 still works, but sentimental reasons prevent me from parting it out. It's currently serving as the bridge in my 'get needed software from newer Macs to older Macs' restoration efforts. Hopefully, once I can find some SCSI hard drives that don't cost an arm and a leg, I'll have an ethernet-ready Mac and won't need that extra step.

 

[Charlieman]

Going back a few years, I used a 6100 as my main Mac at home. In the end I opted for Mac OS 8.6, because it offered the best combination of performance (more of the Toolbox is PPC native than 8.1 and earlier), unbugginess (8.5.x was pretty unrelable, in my experience) and compatibility with most mid 1990s applications. You may even be able to run a web browser that works with modern sites.