What System Software do you recommend running for the PowerBook 140

[Dogmander]

I was wondering what System Software would be best to run on my PowerBook 140, as there are many options in terms of compatible versions. I was thinking of going with 7.0.1, since that is the version it shipped with, but I was also thinking about 7.6.3, as that it the last version it can run. What are your thoughts?

 

[3lectr1cPPC]

I believe 7.1 is more stable than 7.0.1, and it's a good balance in terms of performance. 7.6.1 will run very slowly, especially if you don't have the RAM maxed out.

 

[Dogmander]

I believe 7.1 is more stable than 7.0.1, and it's a good balance in terms of performance. 7.6.1 will run very slowly, especially if you don't have the RAM maxed out.

Is 7.1.1 better than 7.1 as well?

 

[3lectr1cPPC]

Yeah, it's probably got some bugfixes in it. Definitely won't hurt.

 

[joshc]

7.1 or 7.1.1
7.0/7.0.1 are buggy
7.5/7.6 are a bit heavy for those

 

[robin-fo]

7.1.x is always a good choice for any Mac which supports it

 

[3lectr1cPPC]

7.1.x is always a good choice for any Mac which supports it

Unless you're using a PowerPC mac

 

[robin-fo]

Unless you're using a PowerPC mac

I don‘t have a x100 Powermac, so I can‘t tell..

 

[just.in.time]

Depends on how much much RAM you have installed.
4MB or less: System 7.1.x
More than 4MB: System 7.5.5

 

[3lectr1cPPC]

Just because you do have more doesn’t mean you necessarily should - my PowerBook 150 feels a lot quicker on 7.1 than it does on 7.5, and it’s a much faster system (33MHz, the 140 is just 16), but 7.5 does run just fine.

 

[mdeverhart]

I’ll second 7.1.x - I’m much happier with my Duo 230 running 7.1 than when I had 7.5.5 on there (even with 12MB of RAM).

 

[volvo242gt]

7.1.1 is also known as System 7 Pro. Basically 7.5 without Apple Guide, QuickDraw GX, the launcher app, etc. Still has PowerTalk, etc. Needs at least 4MB of real RAM. So, I'd do 7.1 with System Update 3.0. Provides most of the fixes that 7.5 introduced, but without the extra bloat. That said... 7.5 on a LCIII... 2.65MB used.

 

[just.in.time]

Of course 7.1 will run faster than 7.5. Same as 6.0.8 is faster than 7.1. Less features and overhead, etc.

That said, if you’re putting the features to use then it isn’t bloat, it’s added functionality at the expense of performance.

In my case, I have 2 SE/30s, one of them at the stock 16mhz 68030 (same speed as a PB 140)/8MB RAM/Asante Ethernet/SCSI2SD. If I use System 7.1, install extra software I want (OpenTransport, SuperClock, hierarchal menu support, Control Strip, etc.) then I’m not far off System 7.5 resource utilization. Not to mention one of the 7.5.x updates improved usage of disks over 1GB in size if I remember correctly (relevant since I’m using an 8gb SD card in the SCSI2SD, set with four ~2GB partitions), along with various other improvements. For my particular use case on this specific SE/30, 7.5.5 is a decent choice.

That said, yes I agree a clean install of 7.1.x will feel faster and more responsive than a clean install of 7.5.x.

 

[volvo242gt]

In my personal case:

68000: 6.0.8, unless early ROMs and 400K drive, in which case, maybe 3.2.
32-bit dirty 68020 or 030: 6.0.8 dual boot with 7.5.x
32-bit clean 68K with small RAM: same as 32-bit dirty, since there's a chance I may run the machine in 24-bit mode for stuff like a IIe card, etc
32-bit clean 68K with large amounts of RAM: 7.6.1 or 8.1 if it is fast enough
Early PPC: 8.6
PCI PowerMac and newer: 9.2.2 with 10.4.11 on new world PowerMacs.

I didn't mention 7.1 because, once I'm done customizing a 7.1 install, like @just.in.time, I'm already basically running 7.5. On Intel Macs, of course, run the newest OS that will reliably run on the thing, barring any need for running PowerPC programs under Rosetta.

 

[avadondragon]

Depending on what you're using for a hard drive and if you've got the extra space it might be fun to dual boot 6.0.8 along with 7.1.x (or 7.5.x). Here is the version that works on the 140 - https://macintoshgarden.org/apps/system-608-powerbook-140-145-and-170

 

[Unbounded_Villain]

Early PPC: 8.6
PCI PowerMac and newer: 9.2.2 with 10.4.11 on new world PowerMacs.

This. I’m always blown away by the people who don’t know 8.6 is the first version of Classic Mac OS with a PPC-native kernel and recommend 8.5 instead.

I’m also puzzled by people that recommend Mac OS X 10.5 on a PowerPC Mac. There’s very little PPC-only Mac OS X software and the main reason to use a PPC Mac at all is it’s ability to run Classic software, native or the environment.

 

[CC_333]

This. I’m always blown away by the people who don’t know 8.6 is the first version of Classic Mac OS with a PPC-native kernel and recommend 8.5 instead.

Yes. It also has numerous improvements over 8.5 regarding reliability, plus a few minor cosmetic differences (it's the first Mac OS to display its version in the startup screen, disk space readouts in Finder windows go out two decimal places instead of one (for example, 2.44 GB instead of 2.4 GB), etc.)

I’m also puzzled by people that recommend Mac OS X 10.5 on a PowerPC Mac. There’s very little PPC-only Mac OS X software and the main reason to use a PPC Mac at all is it’s ability to run Classic software, native or the environment.

This is a bit trickier, but essentially, you're right.

In my experience, toward the end of the PPC to Intel transition (basically until shortly after 10.5's EOS around June 2011), people who wanted to use their Power Macs as current machines (and didn't want to buy a new Mac) usually ended up running 10.5, and most such people likely weren't interested in Classic Mode anyway (those who wanted Classic simply stayed with Tiger, or on machines powerful enough to handle it, they'd dual boot both 10.4 and 10.5, using 10.5 for daily driving and booting into 10.4 if they needed to do anything with Classic).

In other words: the recommendation to run Mac OS X 10.5 made sense back then, but it's obsolete information now. 10.4 and 10.5 are equally outdated and any advantages 10.5 had over 10.4 have long since become irrelevant (and TenFourFox, the one piece of software that still enables Power Macs to get on the Internet with relatively few compromise,) leveled the playing field further by being equally compatible with both Mac OS X versions), so now it mainly comes down to personal preference and whether one wants to be able to run Classic apps.

c