What OS for my PowerBook 1400c?

[Trash80toHP_Mini]

Interesting discussion, but lets take it back to the topic at hand. The 1400 is a fairly unique situation, especially the first version with no cache. When it came out in that form 64MB of main memory was adequate for a 117MHz machine of the era. When the processor card hit 166MHz with L2 cache it could barely adequately run OS9 with VM. ISTR reading that VM should not exceed physical memory for best performance, but can't recall where the information originated or how reliable a source.

Running System, VM and apps on solid state CF in a PCMCIA adapter made performance acceptable (to me) under OS9 at 166MHz/Cache. I didn't get my 1400 WarDriver playtoy until after the Pismo was out, but it was the only G3 PowerBook (along w/rare 2400c?) until the Kanga was released. With the G3/466MHz/1MB and Solid State Boot Drive/VM it was much like running my 8MB PowerBook 100 off battery backed up SRAM Boot/Application disk under RAMDisk+.

Main machine when I was playing with the 466MHz G3 accelerated 1400 was a 466MHz DA. I always wanted to benchmark the two against each other, but never got around to it. Running older revs of AI on the 1400 seemed close enough the the DA's current version that it didn't disappoint when I was on the road. So no

Running earlier versions yet of AI with rotary VM on the 2300c was something I could adequately do in a customer's office. We went through something close to thirty versions, proofing over FAX modemed laser prints to come up with the most confusing parking lot rate sign (NY Times photo illustrated example for article lambasting the practice) that was wholly and entirely within legal definitions. Presentation is everything.  [}]

Suffice it to say that VM used within limits on hardware from any given era, running applications from that era or one rev. back for speed is all plus, no minus in my real world experience. Setting up a CF boot drive in Punkytown's 1400/117/0MB will be a game changer for his choice of OS. Think of Solid state VM as FarSide Cache located on the I/O side of system memory?

@Punkyclown If you haven't set up SD yet, do so before testing OS choices.

 

[ArmorAlley]

Hi All, since I am struggling mightily to get software to run on my powerbook 1400c, the 
question arises. Which version of Mac OS should I be running on my Mac?  The System is
a PowerPC 603e running at 117mhz, it has 32mgs of ram installed and Virtual ram is set
at 32mgs. I am using a 1 gig hard drive, I am currently running Mac OS 9.1.  A lot of the
software I am trying to use requires MacTCP, only OS 9.1 doesn't use it, it uses MacTCP DNR.
This is obviously not the same thing.  So I am open to suggestions as to what OS would be
best for my set up?
Thanks in advance for the advice
Brad Hansen

Mac OS 8.1 runs grand on 32MB RAM.

Do be sure to trim your System Folder of all unnecessary fat. Mac OS 8.1 gives you access to HFS+.

Maybe an m.2 SATA doodah connected to an IDE-adaptor instead of your 1GB drive and you'll find that the 32MB VM is a lot more responsive.

 

[Cory5412]

I finally had time to bench my G3 with VM off. It gets close to exactly the same scores as with VM on. I'm reasonably confident nobody would notice the performance difference in their day-to-day. (Presuming that it's a real performance difference and it's not just random variation from run to run. ) However, they might notice it taking longer to launch applications, or being able to run fewer programs at once, depending on what software they were using and what their normal workflow looked like. 

ISTR reading that VM should not exceed physical memory for best performance, but can't recall where the information originated or how reliable a source.

I believe I've seen this as well. I don't know if this has any specific technical explanation other than that disk is extremely slow compared to RAM, and keeping your VM allocation reasonable prevents you from trying to do something that a particular machine just shouldn't do.

My reading of the situation is that VM is meant to let a Classic Mac OS machine run a reasonable workload most efficiently, and isn't meant to, say, let a 32MB iMac do the job of a 128MB or 256MB Power Mac.

And, ultimately, compared to other, nicer hardware which supports more RAM, the 1400 is fine but not amazing. Apple argued upon the release of the 3400c that it was a good enough machine to use instead of a desktop computer, but I don't think that was really true until the G3 Mainstreet/Walstreet era.

My 1400/166 with 64MB of RAM feels fast enough for the 1996-1997-era software I'm running on it, but I know for a fact my 8600/300 would feel competent at much newer software. In this era where we can reasonably easily get better systems, I don't see why we wouldn't, for software that needed it.

Calling back to the original post, OP has a 1400/117 with 32MB of RAM and a 1GB disk -- I'd probably double down on my 7.6.1 or 8.1 recommendation, with Speed Doubler 8, clean useless junk out of the system folder, and leave VM on. 32MB of RAM is more than sufficient for most software from ~1996-1998, so that's the kind of stuff I'd recommend looking for, if not older 68k stuff.

 

[Trash80toHP_Mini]

I believe I've seen this as well. I don't know if this has any specific technical explanation other than that disk is extremely slow compared to RAM, and keeping your VM allocation reasonable prevents you from trying to do something that a particular machine just shouldn't do.

I think it's something along the lines of using enough VM to let the system do more than it could without. Meanwhile it's keeping things simple enough for the system to give you a low memory warning so you can save your work and back off the throttle. Given too much imaginary memory play space, a system might dig itself into a hole deep enough, pull it in after itself without warning and then you're SOL so far as unsaved work is  concerned.

His cache deprived 117MHz model is exactly why I suggested running system, apps and VM off a CF card/adapter. Solid state VM is a big help to the lower system memory 'Books that support it. Not as sweet as having 8MB of battery backed up SRAM to play with in a PB100 for same six years or so earlier, but hella good from 190 thru 1400 in my experience if I'm remembering correctly.

 

[Cory5412]

I feel like there may still be some misunderstanding.

Having VM turned on is not the same as actually dipping into VM usage. I recommend against doing enough at once or having enough programs and big data files open on a 1400 to need to go into VM. The reason to have VM turned on is because it lets applications launch faster and because it lets applications (and the system itself) use less memory, allowing a given machine.

Given that OP was asking about MacTCP, my guess is that they aren't using any particularly huge applications. Most of my Claris software from roughtly the 1994-1996 era uses between one and five megs of RAM, with Claris Impact being the heaviest at about six megs. (That's what it uses on 9.2.2 on my G3, I don't have it on my 1400.)

I was looking at my Beige G3 and my PowerBook 1400 and noticed a detail that might not seem obvious to everyone: The default VM allocation is extremely small. On my G3 with 9.2.2 and 448MB of RAM, the VM allocation is 1MB. On my 1400 with 7.6.1 and 64MB of RAM, the VM allocation is 2MB.

Just for fun and laughs: I just opened up almost every app I have on my 1400:- here's what they're using.

 - Claris Organizer 2 (with my data file open) - 1.6MB

 - ClarisWorks 4 (Blank WP doc open) - 1.4MB

 - Claris Resolve - 1MB

 - Claris MacWrite Pro - 900KB

 - HyperCard 2.4.1 (with Home stack open) - 1.5MB

 - PhotoFlash (with a library open)  - 5MB

 - System Software - 9MB

 - Netscape Communicator 4.8 (blank browser window, no network) - 8.2MB

 - QuarkXPress 4.1 - 16MB

 - Stuffit Deluxe 5.5.1 - 6MB

 - Microsoft Excel 5 - 4MB

 - Microsoft Word 6 - 3MB

 - Microsoft PowerPoint 4 - 4MB

At that point, I have just shy of 3.5MB of RAM left. I probably couldn't launch the one remaining program on the system, Claris Home Page 3.0 -- though, closing Netscape would probably open enough room for that.

The VM wasn't touched at all in the process of opening all that software.

This is a relatively unrealistic loadout of software to actually try to run all at once, but I might run a couple of them.

I could probably go to a newer overall loadout, at the expense of being able to run so many apps at once.

My general recommendation would probably be to avoid putting 2002's software like 9.1 and Office 2001 and then-current versions of Adobe/Macromedia applications on a 1400 unless you are extremely hard-up on other hardware or if you're pretty conservative about what you're actually doing.

Notably, it would be interesting to see what the MacBench 4 numbers for the 1400/117 and 1400/133 are, because I just did the /166 and it gets just about 150% of what the 6100/60 does. It's a little less than I thought it would be, given how much faster than my 6100/66 this machine feels, although a lot of that's probably due to the more modern 30GB hard disk this machine has.

 

[just.in.time]

Back to a regular computer, I can now properly answer these.

I finally had time to bench my G3 with VM off. It gets close to exactly the same scores as with VM on.

Plenty of things (Mac, PCs, Video Cards, CPUs etc) can throw impressive benchmarks but face plant under real world demands.  Even today this trend continues (see https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2018-the-trouble-with-pc-benchmark-modes).  While benchmarks can provide a high-level idea of a specific area of performance, such as FPU performance, it is unlikely to be able to paint a realistic overall picture of a system actually under load.  Hence why companies will do trial sessions of online games prior to a main launch.  Sure, the servers benchmark well, but a benchmark and a million people hopping on to play Splatoon 2 launch week are two very different scenarios.  Hence why Nintendo had their Testfire event (https://splatoon.nintendo.com/news-video/splatoon2-global-testfire-demo/).  They are far from the only company to do this, just an example.  Point being, benchmarks are cute for sure, but are bad at mimicking real world demands.  Even for modern systems.  And especially when said benchmark is a sample size of one.

That is awesome that they benchmark close together.  However, I'm going to trust actual software houses and publication companies that recommend it be turned off for improved real world performance.

In addition to external sources, even Mac OS 9 will disable Virtual Memory once you are at 1.0gb (https://discussions.apple.com/thread/520800).  Apple devs decided that at a point there is no reason for Virtual Memory to be enabled.  I'm going to trust their judgment since they are the people who both coded the operating systems and designed the hardware  The official note was once available at http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=25471, but that link appears to be a dead link now.

With RAM so cheap and easily available, there is really no excuse to have to rely on VM, save for systems that can't be expanded (Mac TV, CC, Classic II, IIfx[due to raw cost of rare RAM type], PB 1xx models, etc).  Don't get me wrong, I have it turned on for my base CC @ 7.5.5  (which is maxed at 10mb), and my secondary SE/30 also @ 7.5.5 (which has 8mb).  However, other systems like my 6100 @ 8.1 (with 72mb), Clamshell @ 9.2.2 (with 576mb), Beige G3 @ 9.2.2 (also at 576mb), Quicksilver @ 9.2.2 (with 512mb), and LC 550 @ 7.6.1 (36mb) all run with it off because there is no logical reason to turn it on and risk the potential of a performance hit.  Especially since my main use case (and I imagine many others here) is for old games where performance matters.  Realistically very few of these systems are being used for regular productivity tasks any more.

Having VM turned on is not the same as actually dipping into VM usage.

In Classic Mac OS this is correct, so if you aren't even utilizing the extended VM space AND have adequate RAM installed... why turn it on?  8-o

VM is meant to let a Classic Mac OS machine run a reasonable workload most efficiently

Nah, if that was the case then Apple wouldn't have coded Mac OS 9 to straight up disable VM once you had a boat load of RAM installed.  More than likely, it came about in System 7 because of the ridiculous cost of RAM at the time combined with users wanting to be able to multitask different applications simultaneously. In 1992, prices for RAM started the year at around $36/MB (https://www.jcmit.net/memoryprice.htm).  Virtual Memory (and RAM Doubler) were cost effective solutions for people who wanted multitasking ability, but didn't want to cough up the money for true RAM.  The fact that it is only loading portions of a program into RAM at any given moment causing faster opening times is most likely because it thinks that if you have it on, you are going to want more RAM than is truly available, and since a hard disk of the era was pathetically slow, it is trying to keep you from spilling into the disk at all costs... including picking and choosing which chunks of code to load.

The most credible potential source you cited in terms of VM being off helping anything is the case of the game -- notably, you didn't actually have a link to a PDF of the manual or anything like that,

Uhhhh....

*Maxis, of Full Tilt! Pinball (Space Cadet [aka Windows 95-XP Pinball], Skulduggery, Dragon's Keep): Read me states playing with Virtual Memory turned on may cause a decline in performance, especially in the area of speed.  They go on to recommend turning off virtual memory if possible.   The notable exception being on the PM 7100 due to a memory mapping note, but does not mention any other systems.  And even then, it still notes a potential speed hit (I assume in regards to frame rate, but I don't have a 7100 to test that).

step 1: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Full+Tilt+Pinball+macintosh+repository

step 2: 

step 3: 

step 4: decompress that file and mount the .iso

step 5: 

The most credible potential source you cited in terms of VM being off helping anything is the case of the game -- notably, you didn't actually have a link to a PDF of the manual or anything like that

It's funny that you call me out for not having one item linked (despite several other links provided) when you have failed to provide any citations at all 

I mean, like, QuickTime recording and playback is perfectly fine on my Beige with VM on, so I'm finding anecdotes about dropped frames to be a little suspect. (I even poked it last night, and it played a video I'd recorded with no trouble, even with some other software running.)

The Beige G3 is a fantastic machine that was quite capable for its time.  I would hope it can play back 480p Quicktime videos given what it was marketed as.  But there are other classic Mac computers in existence besides the Beige G3.  I was specifically referring to a PowerBook 2400c/180 with stock hard drive, 80mb RAM, running Mac OS 9.1 attempting to play back a 360p Quicktime video.  I'm going to go out on a limb and say a Beige G3 is significantly more powerful than a PowerBook 2400c   Point being, just because something is fine for one machine/situation doesn't mean you can apply that same result to other machines/situations.

 

[Cory5412]

Thank you for providing the detailed information from that Pinball game. When was that game released? My guess is at the time, the presumption was memory amounts were low enough people were actually swapping to disk on the daily, but who knows. I wasn't there when the company decided to write that note. It seems weird that they wrote the note only about the 7100. Were the 6100 and 8100 immune to the issue at hand? Missing details like that make me extremely hesitant to accept it as advice for how to handle RAM in Classic Mac OS for all use cases.

As far as the 1GB thing goes, that's the actual maximum amount of memory Mac OS 9 can address, and my guess is Apple never fixed it because by the time you could get a machine that officially supported a gig of memory out of the box, Apple was operating under the presumption everybody would have moved to Mac OS X fairly quickly. It's important to remember that the thing the 2003 OS9-compatible Power Macintosh G4 is named after, QuarkXPress, only used like 16 megs of RAM by default.

Final Cut, I feel like I can speak to with relative authority: My guess is that the advice you linked to is a recommendation to install as much RAM in your computer as possible, not to turn off the VM entirely. Given that Final Cut is a very disk intensive application, I feel like it's kind of a given that it would be bad if your machine swapped while you were using it. However, day-to-day in Final Cut, and I feel like I can say this because I cut several projects with FCP3 on OS 9 on my blue-and-white back in the day, VM being on (or, hell, appletalk being on) didn't impact it.

AIM being open would have -- but that gets at a very different aspect to this conversation. In a lot of cases, we're all running Classic Mac OS with way more memory than is reasonable for day-to-day use on the platform. Gaming never used this much RAM on Classic Mac OS. Internet didn't until very very late in the game. The only real use cases I can think of for 512MB or more of RAM on a Classic Mac OS system is if you're doing a lot of really heavy work in one app. Even on the oldest systems, with as slow as a 6100 or a 1400 really is, mo

However, ultimately, the advice to consider carefully what OS and apps to run on each machine, and perhaps even the advice just to try things and see what you (generally, as in, everybody) like and what works well and what you can deal with is solid. To add to all of this, ultimately, the thing we've got to realize is that, the OP is under different circumstances than, well, all of us. They might decide they've got a different level of patience. I run 7.6.1 and older software on my 1400 in part because it's way faster like that -- even if I never realistically dip all the way into the 64 megs of RAM it is. Someone who isn't hauling their 1400 around and running it in coffee shops might not care about boot and launch times as much as I do.

In so many words: You're not wrong. With the fast storage people put in their vintage Macs and with as much RAM as we're all dropping in these things, because there's close to literally no cost, the main disadvantages of VM disappear. In fact, my server is running with VM off because it has a gig of RAM, and my TiBook, when I get it going again, will do the same, for the same reason.

That said, I still think it's important to remember that, given the way most people upgrade their machines, even if there was a "real" impact on RAM access performance, most of us are running our '90s games on much better, and higher end, systems than those games ever needed. Your Pinball game probably doesn't need VM to be off if instead of a 68k or an x100 you run it on a 6500 or 7300 or a G3.

 

[finkmac]

Hi Brad,

The best choice for OS version would by System 7.5.3 with PowerTalk.

Enjoy!

 

[just.in.time]

Thank you for providing the detailed information from that Pinball game. When was that game released? My guess is at the time, the presumption was memory amounts were low enough people were actually swapping to disk on the daily, but who knows. I wasn't there when the company decided to write that note. It seems weird that they wrote the note only about the 7100. Were the 6100 and 8100 immune to the issue at hand? Missing details like that make me extremely hesitant to accept it as advice for how to handle RAM in Classic Mac OS for all use cases.

Supports earlier versions of System 7... definitely runs on 7.5.3.  Since they don't specify all PowerPC Macs and just a specific unit, it may have to do with the 7100 specifically and some early System 7 bug.  IIRC, 7.6/7.6.1 ironed out a lot of PowerPC related bugs.  So I imagine a 7100 running late system 7/early Mac OS 8 versions would no longer be affected.  But again, I don't own a 7100 to test that with.  However, I do have a 6100.  If your are really curious, maybe I can pull it out and do performance comparisons on this specific game.  All that is regardless, as it still notes a speed hit when running with VM enabled.  No one wants a pinball that stutters as it travels the board.  Lol that would just be awful.

As far as the 1GB thing goes, that's the actual maximum amount of memory Mac OS 9 can address

The MDD running 9.2.2 can definitely acknowledge and utilize 1.5GB of RAM (http://macos9lives.com/smforum/index.php?topic=2101.0).  However, it can only acknowledge if RAM above that point is installed, but NOT utilize it in any meaningful way (i.e. if you have 1.75 or 2gb installed, it will let you know that it can see the memory, but it won't appear as part of the largest unused block).  See the provided link. So not a bug of Mac OS 9 not wanting to work with more that 1GB of RAM.  I'm still calling it a feature of the OS built by Apple themselves that it forces Virtual Memory off when above 1GB of physical RAM is installed and utilized by the system as RAM.

Final Cut, I feel like I can speak to with relative authority: My guess is that the advice you linked to is a recommendation to install as much RAM in your computer as possible, not to turn off the VM entirely.

:huh:  Any actual sources to contradict that link?  According to Silent Way Media, an AV consulting firm based out of San Francisco, CA, in their tips for improving performance on an OS 9 based system: "Turn off virtual memory unless certain programs explicitly require it. Click "Use Defaults," and then turn OFF Virtual Memory. (Requires a restart.) If you don't have enough memory to run programs, buy RAM instead. It's cheap." (http://www.silentway.com/mac-tips-better-os-9-settings).  That's another source stating to deactivate VM to improve performance in regards to audio, video, and related metadata (so basically, Final Cut and related use cases).

In summary, if you truly have adequate physical RAM installed for a given use case, then turning off VM is the best choice as it removes performance impacts occurring under certain usage scenarios while running with it left on.  Since Apple agrees, given what OS 9 does with adequate RAM installed, I'm going to say this is the correct answer. Virtual Memory turned on but not utilized appears to offer no benefits other than certain applications having slightly increased launch times at an expense of having to load other elements later when needed.  However, if your system is short on RAM and you can't find more, don't want to spend the money on it, are already maxed out, or, like my secondary SE/30, just don't care then obviously use it.  If not working with AV/games, then likely the overall experience will only require a bit of extra patience without a significant hit on the overall experience/usability.

At any rate, I think this thread has been pretty well traversed and analyzed.  Hopefully OP has a good idea of what system version will run comfortably on the hardware they have

 

[Cory5412]

One thought about the pinball game: the 6100, 7100 and 8100 have the unique-to-PowerPC situation of having onboard graphics that uses RAM. It's likely related to that specific issue that they recommend turning VM off.

I wonder if their development systems included a 6100 with AV, and a 7100 without either AV or the HPV, and as such, they didn't notice the issues on 6100 but they did on 7100. If this is true, then I'll admit this takes a particularly dim view to the developers in question, because they either didn't bother to look at the developers notes, which should have made it clear that the 6100, 7100, and 8100 all have both onboard and AV or high performance video options available.

The other thing #68kmla reminded me of was that the VM system has been revamped a lot a couple times, so depending on the particular time the game was released, problems in VM for system 7.1 or 7.5.0-7.5.5 for PowerPC might have caused the issues being cited as well. 7.6.1 and 8.6 both revamped the VM systems a lot, so running a newer version (or, in early OS releases for PowerPC, Connectix RAMdoubler or another third party utility instead of Apple's first-party VM tools) will help on that front, if it's reasonable.

Any actual sources to contradict that link?

Other than me going "I cut some DV in FCP3 on a G3 and it was fine" - none that I have on hand. Final Cut Pro 3 was released solidly into the G4 era and the only special thing I did was "only use one app at a time" and I had a second hard disk for capturing and scratch, so it certainly stands to reason that it should be counted among, essentially, edge cases for Mac OS 9 performance.  In my particular real-world experience with it, however, that just never turned out to be true.

Turning off VM might help your Final Cut Pro 3 experience if you were running it on a G3/233 with 96 megs of RAM, but it was largely irrelevant by the time you had a G3 at over 400MHz with 200 or more megs of RAM. Most of what Final Cut relies on is disk performance, in my experience. It's well known even modern video editing apps don't really try to load footage into RAM.

What I'd be interested in looking at, and at some point I can see about loading up some footage into Final Cut Pro 3 on my Beige or B&W, is whether or not it impacts render times. Because Final Cut Pro didn't do almost anything in real-time until 4, at which point the preferred hardware was either a Power Macintosh G5 or a PowerBook/Mac with a good GPU, and turning off virtual memory was not even possible, and you were way more likely to swap in OS X.

The MDD running 9.2.2 can definitely acknowledge and utilize 1.5GB of RAM

This was mentioned in #68kMLA, so my bad on that. What's interesting to me, and to be honest I feel like this points as much to Apple just not caring about OS 9 by the time this happened as it does to any evidence that Apple thought VM was Bad Actually, because OS 9 was still never updated to actually be able to use 2GB of ram.

Although, as mentioned, there's very little good reason to actually have more than half a gig of RAM in a Classic Mac OS machine. Heavy multi-tasking is largely unstable and some of the biggest-looking data (video, in particular) relies more on having a good two-disk setup than it does on RAM.

In summary, if you truly have adequate physical RAM installed for a given use case, then turning off VM is the best choice as it removes performance impacts occurring under certain usage scenarios while running with it left on

Performance impacts that probably only exist under the earliest PPC-compatible releases of the OS, and perhaps in some situations only under some hardware configurations (notably on the 6/7/8100 with their onboard video, which used shared system RAM) and only under specific use cases, and only matter if you're trying to do something that's at the very edge of what's reasonable on a particular system.

Ultimately, I think if anything, the fact that Apple never updated VM to work properly at and above a gig of RAM is an indication of either an underlying technical limitation, or the fact that that limit was only being hit at the very end of OS 9's life. AppleSpec from 1998 only thought the 9600 could use 768 megs of RAM and the G3 shipped with official support for just 192 megs for the desktop and 384.

By and large, I struggle to think of a use case where beyond 512MB of RAM on an OS9 machine is really important. And, what's worse, is from a technical and performance perspective, I struggle to think of a use case for that much RAM where you wouldn't just be better served by moving to OS X, even on the same hardware.

There are a few niche cases, but I think they should be taken for what they are: bugs in the oldest versions of System 7, oddities with the very earliest and very newest Classic-compatible hardware, and a few situations where a use case just barely works on a machine, and a literal couple-percent difference actually matters. Those situations dont' really work out to a reasonable day-to-day recommendation that VM is generally to  be avoided.

I think they work out to: we should consider each situation and decide whether VM would hurt or hinder on a particular configuration for a particular set of tasks.

 

[just.in.time]

@Cory5412 Lol, okay.  Whatever works for you.

 

[Cory5412]

So if you have time to test that game on 7.1 with both the onboard and AV or HPV graphics on your 6100, both with and without VM, and ideally (to recreate the conditions under which the game was released) with as little RAM as possible, 8-12MB, then that would be Really Good. I understand that's probably not something you've really got time to stop what you're doing tonight to do.

 

[Cory5412]

One more thought: At the core of my discussion about VM is the fact that it's clear OP is using their machine differently from you. OP hasn't made it clear exactly what they're doing, yet, but I don't see any mentions of, say, the need for video playback or specific games. The only hint they gave us was that it's a 1400/133 with 32MB of RAM and that they have applications which were originally designed for MacTCP.

Recommending random stuff with no good background or consideration is a problem we've got, and there's a couple (at least) different issues where it comes up.

I think everybody reading this would likely do well to remember that not everyone's in the hobby or using these machines with the same context you are. If I've ever spent a bunch of time effortposting The Opposite Opinion about something, it's usually because I think the thing you're is either technically false, possibly dangerous, or otherwise just poorly considered.

Yes, more data points are good, but they're often just that: data points relevant to a particular use case or a particular (often totally unrelated) interest, workload, machine, era, etc.

And, that probably points to the greatest flaw with your replies to this thread, @just.in.time - they're relevant if you want to play 480p on a PB2400, or if you want to decode an MP3 on an SE/30, or if you have a gig of RAM installed in a very late era G3 or G4. They aren't really relevant if you're looking for an OS that will play well on a 1400/133 with 32 megs of RAM to run some apps that need MacTCP.

I'm happy that you have a good time on your machines with VM off. It's not dangerous to do, but it might not produce the best results for everyone. That's my point.

 

[just.in.time]

And, that probably points to the greatest flaw with your replies to this thread, @just.in.time - they're relevant if you want to play 480p on a PB2400, or if you want to decode an MP3 on an SE/30, or if you have a gig of RAM installed in a very late era G3 or G4. They aren't really relevant if you're looking for an OS that will play well on a 1400/133 with 32 megs of RAM to run some apps that need MacTCP.

The flaw with your replies is that you accept your own knowledge and experiences as hard fact, when the reality is very different.  You seem to have no concept of doing research and citing your sources, and instead believe that your own memory is infallible, which as we have already seen is blatantly wrong on several counts.  Please, if you take anything away from this thread, learn to research and cite sources.  I've provided reason after reason with source after source for instances where VM being on, when not needed, is both pointless and provides potential for degraded performance.  You, on the other hand, have been able to provide NOTHING, ZERO, NADA in regards to actual reasons why keeping VM turned on when not needed is a good choice.  If this were a private discussion it would actually be hilarious.  However, this is a public forum where people come to get actual knowledge.  Not some place where people come to hear flawed logic, using statements such as "I think" and "I feel" that goes against actual cited professionals' advice from the era and even Mac OS 9 itself.

they're relevant if you want to play 480p on a PB2400, or if you want to decode an MP3 on an SE/30, or if you have a gig of RAM installed in a very late era G3 or G4. They aren't really relevant if you're looking for an OS that will play well on a 1400/133 with 32 megs of RAM to run some apps that need MacTCP.

The funny part is that your unique logic, reasoning, research, and discussion skills don't really matter to me.  What is really annoying and a down right shame is that you keep arguing from the assumption that everyone has an entire fleet of vintage Macs that span from the oldest of the old to the very best of the G4s, and will always have the right tool for the job.  And that is just down right wrong.  For many here, their collection consists of just one or two machines.  Their reasons for only one or two machines are many.  Maybe they don't have the space, the time, the financial resources, etc.  Frankly, that isn't really our business.  Regardless, they should have the same opportunity to experience as much of the classic Mac OS library as possible.  That includes titles as old as Dark Castle and SufflePuck Cafe to Cro-Mag Rally and Final Cut.  If the best they have to experience it on is a G3 233mhz with 96mb of RAM then that is not your place to judge.  As far as I could tell, the point of this site is to encourage vintage Macintosh experiences by providing the absolute best knowledge and recommendations to get the most out of a given piece of hardware, and how to maintain that hardware so it can last as long as possible into the future.  There are going to be plenty of people trying to push their hardware to the very max because they can't just hop over to their 867mhz G4 or whatever.  That said, knowing how our systems respond at the very edge of their performance envelope is important.  I want other members to be comfortable asking how to shoehorn a piece of software into their limited hardware, not shamed because they see replies like the one I just quoted from you.

I had actually opened back up to this site to send most of that to you via PM as I believe in praise in public and criticize in private but you chose to continue the discussion and call my responses flawed, while still not citing any sources on your end.

I'm happy that you have a good time on your machines with VM off. It's not dangerous to do, but it might not produce the best results for everyone. That's my point.

lol and the really ironic point is that you are precisely half correct.  If you have the memory to spare, running with VM off isn't dangerous at all and WILL produce the best overall results.  However, the opposite is not true.  If you have the memory to spare, and are running a task that pushes your machine in specific ways, running with VM on can impact performance.  Honest question, do you not see the logic here?

 

[finkmac]

lol virtual memory off. who the heck would do that? Like anyone is gonna be doing HARDCORE VIDEO EDITING on their 1400c these days heh. what are you gonna get from vm off like one extra frame per second while your machine runs out of memory? lmao 

 

[just.in.time]

lol virtual memory off. who the heck would do that? Like anyone is gonna be doing HARDCORE VIDEO EDITING on their 1400c these days heh. what are you gonna get from vm off like one extra frame per second while your machine runs out of memory? lmao 

“Lol virtual memory on. Who the heck would do that when they already have ADAQUATE memory installed? Like anyone is going to be doing something (aka gaming etc) that might push their system close to the edge these days heh. What are you gonna get from VM on like periodic frame drops and audio stuttering at random intervals while your machine isn’t even utilizing the VM anyways? Lmao”

... there, fixed that for you  Obviously if you are short on memory then turn on VM. I think you should reread the entire thread to understand the discussion of when VM is useful vs when it becomes a hinderence.

 

[finkmac]

weird flex but ok

 

[just.in.time]

Thank you!

 

[just.in.time]

The best choice for OS version would by System 7.5.3 with PowerTalk.

Would be giving up a few features going that far back BUT would be incredibly light weight and probably very responsive.