Which Mac was the last that could run 9.22?

[ScutBoy]

FWIW, G4 Cube will run 9, and run it pretty well. It's what they were originally released with.

 

[Trash80toHP_Mini]

Don't let the ones that look like they are totally normal fool you, they are the worst in the group. You knock just one of the pens they brought, which are perfectly squared to the corner of the desk, in ROYGBIV order, out of alignment, and they will eat your face!

LOL! Funny you should mention that. In pre-med my son's friends thought he was crazy because he liked organic chemistry.  That he was there on a full ride from a fine arts grant/double major package and brought the best and brightest crazies of that crowd into their circle drove it home.

At work folks will stop by to find out what craziness I'm up to during downtime, that it's sometimes "development work" for computers older than they are makes it all the more fun. That the graphics they see posted here when I show them what's up are done on G4 era hardware with software that runs under OS9 is something most can't wrap their heads around. When it's a making a scale model of a computer case, a piece of furniture, a workstation, workbench or shop equipment/storage from paper and tape/rubber cement they can get it and then they're positive I'm way out there.

I got the biggest kick when a comedian used the reply to her classmates when she made a trip back to her little home town in Texas. A group of them asked her why she didn't settle down get married and have kids like a normal person, she told them they weren't normal , they were ordinary. :lol:

Back on topic: I'm retrofitting my first (Commodore 64. VCR) computer workstation/entertainment center's pullout C64 KBD drawer with full extension slides to work with the BookEndz PowerBoock docks for my trio of OS9 G3 toys. 1400c,/PDQ/Pismo docks can be swapped on from two shelves underneath to the pullout whenever/whatever fancy strikes me. OS9 is fun on quite a wide segment of the Mac's development spectrum.

 

[Cory5412]

Where can I down load the software that made the graph you posted?

PM me for a vtools account. The results #68kMLA and a few other have gathered so far are on the Public share, and MacBench is available as an IMG you can mount and run directly or burn to a CD and run from there.

But things like UltraSCSI, higher levels of PATA and SATA running off their own PCI cards in the QS'02 is something I take for granted and expansion of a kind not available in the Mini form factor.

What about Firewire disks? A single (or number of) 2TB disk(s) in FW enclosure(s) should do the trick for storage.

The G4 mini will only run one display, however, so that is admittedly a bummer.

 

[Trash80toHP_Mini]

For FireWire I've got one nice little 3.5" HDD enclosure and one very sexy lookin' curvaceous, RED VST Zip250, but never really warmed to the interface. If I had been doing video it would have been a different story. A SATA 1.4TB drive holds backups of the PATA and UltraSCSI working drives in the QS'02 ATM. Isn't that a quite a lot faster than a FW400 bridged disk?

One day I'll make the move to SATA/SSD, but no hurry there. Illustrator is CPU limited and the files take up no space as compared to your graphics workflow and storage requirements which are more disk limited in time and space than CPU limited, no?

edit: I've also got a SCSI CoolScan for slides/negatives and another for large format negatives/transparencies to support, so that's another drawback to a Mini solution.

edit: in the post above I meant to say tens of thousand of dollars worth of licensed Graphics and CAD/CAM applications. Some are dongled and some were never "upgraded" to OSX by the mfrs. so I never moved anything onto that OS.

 

[Cory5412]

Isn't that a quite a lot faster than a FW400 bridged disk?

Numerically: yes.

In practice: Probably not meaningfully so.

For consideration: it depends on use cases and on the type of drive you have.

Hard disks never had the giant performance uplift SSDs had.. For example: https://www.storagereview.com/seagate_ironwolf_pro_nas_hdd_12tb_review the rated maximum sustained transfer there is 215 MB/sec for one of the biggest, newest disks you can get. It was SSDs that eventually reached the upper limit of 6-gigabit SATA performance. A performance-oriented hard disk like this one https://www.storagereview.com/seagate_barracuda_pro_12tb_review can sustain 250MB/sec.

I looked at an example 1.5TB disk from when those were shipping and a Seagate 7200RPM disk of that size I found on Amazon (used, probably, since that size was common around ten years ago) was rated for about 125MB/sec, so a bit between the two interfaces.

SATA that works in old Macs is rated for about 150MB/sec. Firewire 400 is up to around 50.

At some point I'll look, I have an FW400 enclosure I mean to put some 2TB disks into, but I'm not expecting it to create a meaningful difference.

You'll almost certainly notice more if you're doing something that causes a lot of random, high-speed reads and writes, though again as I mentioned about SSD in general, if you put an SSD on firewire and a big spinning disk on SATA the SSD would almost certainly still feel faster.

I'm largely unfamiliar with what faster SCSI devices can actually deliver. 

(If I'm reading this right, a high end disk from 2004, a tad under 75 MB/sec in the best-cased scenarios. That number probably improved with a good RAID controller and using a few different disks in a stripe.)

TL;DR - I struggle to believe having storage connected via Firewire instead of a PCI SATA card would matter for almost any OS 9 use case.

Illustrator is CPU limited and the files take up no space as compared to your graphics workflow and storage requirements which are more disk limited in time and space than CPU limited, no?

It depends. Right now, is there a delay when opening files? Do you ever spend time rifling through files trying to find a particular version? Those tasks would be faster on an SSD, because of the seek times.

For photos - largely, disk access and seeks have been the death of almost every system I've had. It's why my G3, G4, and Core1Duo[Rosetta] Macs all appeared to be working at about the same rate, with Photoshop CS2.

For video - with DV, keeping a disk clean so large files can be read sequentially at speed is what's important. If I were configuring a DV/HDV editing computer on an old Mac, I'd probably do dual disks and keep a cleaned-up capture/render disk. The DV bitrate is really low, around 13 megabits, so it doesn't really matter what disk you use as long as it's in working order and 

Today SSDs became important for modern video largely because files are so big and data rates are so high individual spinning hard disks can't keep up with editing workflows.

SCSI CoolScan

There are FW/USB adapters.

That said, given that you've already got a working setup, I'd say keep working with what you've got. A couple people I've discussed this with have tagged "building an OS 9 machine cheaply and easily for someone who doesn't already have one" as one of the more exciting things about OS 9 on the Mac mini, but 9 works well on so much, you'd be better served with that as a solution if you were reasonably familiar with OS 9 but needed some kind of machine for a very small space.

 

[Paralel]

LOL! Funny you should mention that. In pre-med my son's friends thought he was crazy because he liked organic chemistry.  That he was there on a full ride from a fine arts grant/double major package and brought the best and brightest crazies of that crowd into their circle drove it home...

Sounds like your son and I would get along well. I was an ace in organic chemistry. Completed courses at the graduate level for my master's.

 

[Trash80toHP_Mini]

There are FW/USB adapters.

That said, given that you've already got a working setup, I'd say keep working with what you've got. A couple people I've discussed this with have tagged "building an OS 9 machine cheaply and easily for someone who doesn't already have one" as one of the more exciting things about OS 9 on the Mac mini, but 9 works well on so much, you'd be better served with that as a solution if you were reasonably familiar with OS 9 but needed some kind of machine for a very small space.

There is that, but why use an adapter when there are perfectly good expansion cards available on a platform that's coasting along running versions of software released a year or three before it was itself?

Because I can would be a great reason to play with the Mini, but then again there's a 12" AluBook G4 sitting here with its PartsBook twin as an unsupported challenge to doing something Apple made clear I never could. That's more how I roll  .  .  .  along with that expansion slots and cards and spanned desktop thing. [}]

 

[Paralel]

Because I can would be a great reason to play with the Mini, but then again there's a 12" AluBook G4 sitting here with its PartsBook twin as an unsupported challenge to doing something Apple made clear I never could. That's more how I roll  .  .  .  along with that expansion slots and cards and spanned desktop thing. [}]

I like the way you think. 

 

[Unknown_K]

Generally anytime you run an unsupported  OS on a mac you end up with driver issues for sound, networking, video, etc. There are so many machines that are OS 9 native I don't see the point.

 

[Cory5412]

The reports are that it works "fine" - and, the benchmarking scores are well over twice as fast as something like a PowerBook G4@1GHz.

Granted, in that kind of scenario, you can usually just run 10.4 on a fast G5 and do your compute-intensive work in Classic Mode there.

There is that, but why use an adapter when there are perfectly good expansion cards available on a platform that's coasting along running versions of software released a year or three before it was itself?

Largely, it depends on what someone has or has space for, or wants to deal with, or perhaps what they're willing to deal with in terms of networking.

Or: not everybody who asks for advice is you.

The person who asked has literally one (1) single PPC Mac and it's not a super high performance model. If they (or someone else looking for an OS 9 system) needed the utmost in CPU performance for some reason, they might've chosen to go for a Mini (or another fast unsupported system, and then later if they needed a particular peripheral, they might elect to adapt rather than to buy an entire new system.

In your case, the main reason I wouldn't bother to switch, is because you've already got your setup and your workflow and it's working.

Plus, like I said, the dual displays problem is actually unchangeable on the Mac mini.

 

[Trash80toHP_Mini]

Generally anytime you run an unsupported  OS on a mac you end up with driver issues for sound, networking, video, etc. There are so many machines that are OS 9 native I don't see the point.

There is no point, that's half the point! :grin: Excellent progress has been made with that particular bit of insanity on that particular OS9 hostile, sweet little PowerBook. Hacking away at that is not something I can do myself, but I'm really curious about playing with the gorgeous little thing as the project progresses.

I made an offhand, flippant comment in the primary discussion of Cory's suggestion for an OS9 retrofit of an OSX Mac that happens to be compatible with OS9. Going that route would be something I'd never recommend as an OS9 solution, just playtime. There is no spoon. ;-)

Or: not everybody who asks for advice is you.

The person who asked has literally one (1) single PPC Mac and it's not a super high performance model. If they (or someone else looking for an OS 9 system) needed the utmost in CPU performance for some reason, they might've chosen to go for a Mini (or another fast unsupported system, and then later if they needed a particular peripheral, they might elect to adapt rather than to buy an entire new system. 

Absolutely, I thought that was the point of exploring our two approaches. The IP made no mention of a reason for wanting to know the latest OS9 Mac or what it might be used to do. Simple question, simple answer, but I loved your notion of exploring the various options for doing an OS swap for unsupported, but happily OS9 compatible systems. That's something I've never explored on my own. The RAW CPU power in a small form factor vs. DAW monster/insane MDD'03 upgrade approach to OS9 platforms is interesting. Haven't looked, but my assumption is that your Mini suggestion boasts a much faster system bus combined with processor speed. I imagine that's the main reason for such outstanding benchmark leads, the 20% speed bump of CPU would be relatively insignificant..

In your case, the main reason I wouldn't bother to switch, is because you've already got your setup and your workflow and it's working.

Exactly, and it all depends upon what mraroid wants to use OS9 to do. :wink:

Plus, like I said, the dual displays problem is actually unchangeable on the Mac mini.

I haven't followed up on it, but that's why I liked your PowerBook recommendations. That's something to talk about now that the Mini option vs. Maxi option has been explored. Spanned displays in a small, portable solution to OS9 workflow requirements would be good to go here.

What's your recommendation for the best candidate for maximum performance on the PowerBook front? Reliability of components both physical packaging and chipset failure related would be a major factor there. Your suggestions for no-slot expansion of the Mini are directly applicable.

 

[CC_333]

any eMac would probably be a really nice OS 9 machine: Those displays are very good, or at least they were when they were just a couple years old, and they have three USB ports. I'd put one on my desk if I found one inexpensively and semi-local (I love road trips, let me know if you're from CA, AZ, NM, NV, UT, or CO and want to unload one!)

I'm here late, but I have actually two I'd like to get rid of. I'm up near SF, though, so maybe a bit far for you? (or maybe not; it'd be kinda like going to UT, except not as flat).

They *are* very decent OS 9 machines, and it looks beautiful and crisp on the 17" CRT (especially at the native resolution). Not 100% sure mine work, though, but I will test them to make sure.

c

 

[mraroid]

They *are* very decent OS 9 machines, and it looks beautiful and crisp on the 17" CRT

CC_333....

I probably should keep working on the machine I have, but I do love a crisp CTR.  While I have a OLED 65 inch 4K TV, I still love watching my Sony HD CRT TV.  It was the last one Sony made before it moved to flat screens.  I love that CRT screen.
 
Which Macs are you going to sell?  Maybe I need a rode trip.....
 
mraroid
 

 

[AlpineRaven]

Loving my G4 MDD - it was originally dual 1ghz FW400, upgraded it to Dual 1.42ghz with Copper Headsink, Sonnet SATA PCI Card with m.2 SSD HDD, 2gb RAM maxed out - damn this mac is a beast..  Running OSX.5.6 and Mac OS 9.2.2.

Really keen getting PowerBook G4 1ghz as well
Cheers

AP

 

[waynestewart]

I prefer my fw400 MDD with a dual 1.42ghz overclocked to 1.5ghz and SATA SSD for OS 9. It's faster than anything else I have for OS 9. I guess my second choice would be my QS with dual 1.8ghz upgrade. It's noticeably slower than the MDD but still pretty good

 

[Cory5412]

Edit: Just for clarity, I wanted to add that I wrote this Tuesday of last week and then had to leave town for a few days, so this draft hung out on my computer until this morning when I had gotten back and slept.

The fastest of the "legit" Mac OS 9 machines: 867/1000MHz TiBook.

It's well known that I personally don't think pursuing absolute maximum performance on Mac OS 9 is very meaningful, but with an SSD or a pretty fast hard disk from the late 2000s, my 1000MHz TiBook has been flying. I need to get it a battery, because I think that it might be downclocking itself with no battery installed. I get around half of what my friend's benchmark in the screenshot up-thread is.

That said, it's really about what an individual person wants and values in a portable. To be honest, I would almost certainly swap my TiBook for someone's Rage 128 iBook 500/600, especially the 12" version, or if I knew there was a 12" PowerBook G4 that ran OS 9 extremely reliably, that system.

For me, the need for an on-the-go OS 9 system has basically tracked with my need for a modern computer: very simple tasks, as small and light as possible.

In terms of flexibility, I'd probably pick the Pismo. I had one when I was starting at university and with two good batteries the thing would get over 12 hours of battery run time.

Haven't looked, but my assumption is that your Mini suggestion boasts a much faster system bus combined with processor speed.

Actually I wanted to address this re: the MDD as well.

You mentioned somewhere that the MDD uses DDR RAM. It does, physically, use DDR1 memory, but it gets nowhere near the benefit out of it as contemporary PCs did. (for the "XPress Edition") The RAM should be running at the same as the stated system bus speed of 167MHz.

The Mac Mini G4 is the same, per EveryMac.

So, that bus is doing something, for sure. There's also varying G4 chips that had different pipeline and cache configurations: it's widely regarded that the "G4e" (which, if I'm remembering correctly, is basically any G4 from around 700MHz and up) is less efficient than the original G4. You can see some of that here: https://barefeats.com/GGG2.html

The SOLO 533 deserves "honorable mention." The G4/733 has a 37.5% faster clock speed, on-chip cache, multiple FPU's, and multiple Velocity Engines. Yet it was only 15.4% faster than the SOLO G3/533 (average of the above 6 tests).

Granted, the problem wasn't as severe as Intel had it with the earliest Pentium 4s, they still benched and worked faster at a certain point, just not the way you might have expected it to scale.

 

[Cory5412]

Sorry for the delay, been out a couple days. My directly previous post was actually drafted on Tuesday and some last-minute stuff came up and I've been out of town since Tuesday night.

I have actually two I'd like to get rid of

If, and only if, you have time, let me know what you find out. I can almost certainly fabricate an excuse to drive to the SF Bay Area (or anywhere, but), but it won't be extremely soon.

It's noticeably slower than the MDD but still pretty good

See, like, I'm still curious about this. I believe you discussed this in another "ultimate OS 9 machine" kind of thread a few months ago as well.

I'd be extremely interested in macbench 4/5 numbers, and more information on what you mean by "noticeably" because in my experience and workflows -- and it might just be that I haven't touched any 3d or video apps on Mac OS 9 in around fifteen years -- moving around Mac OS 9 and using software like Office 98, Dreamweaver MX and a couple other things is negligibly different between, say, my 8600/300, my G3/300 (Beige), my G3/450 (blue-white) and my G4/1000 (TiBook). I've never sat down and used my QS'02 (which I believe is a single /800) as an endpoint machine so I can't really comment on it other than that it feels sprightly.

At some point, essentially what happened is that Mac OS 9 software could only open and do common tasks so instantly, or you run up against obvious "Mac OS 9 suffers badly from its old internal architecture and this reflects on its ability to work well on the newest computer that support it" or disk i/o issues. (Which: I'll argue, is part of the previous point.)

Given that these kinds of configurations cost actual money to put together, it's unlikely I'll get an opportunity to sit down at this kind of machine and give it a go myself, short of, say, dropping by your home at some point.

If you have a video of time trials or what about the "faster" configuration actually feels faster to you, I'd be super interested in seeing.

BTW, if you have time/wherewithal etc please PM me to set up a vtools account. I have dc6 files of both macbench 4 and 5 and I would love for the results from these two machines to be in that dataset. I've got @Compgeke's 1.5GHz upgraded gig-eth or dA and one other IRC person's Mac Mini G4 in the set, along with a TiBook/1000 both with and without batteries installed (appears to make a difference) and some other neat stuff.

This offer is open to anybody interested in running MacBench.

 

[Compgeke]

The 1.5 is just a plain boring Sawtooth Macintosh Server G4/500 with the weird 155W redundantish PSU. I do have a few other machines I can try out like a 1.0 MDD if I can find the time.

 

[mraroid]

What advantage does the:

" Power Macintosh G4 "Digital Audio", "QuickSilver", or "QuickSilver 2003" - those three systems have nearly identical architecture (to the best of my knowledge, the "QuickSilver" is literally the same system board as the Digital Audio, but repainted and with newer CPUs)."

have over the 2003 revision of the Mirrored Drive Door Power Macintosh G4?

I am only looking at desktops, not laptops or Mac mini systems.

I want to be able to run OS 9.22, and boot to a a flavor of OSX.

Thanks

mraroid

 

[Trash80toHP_Mini]

DA comes in Graphite! :grin:

DA & QS have readily available (comparitively speaking) Zip bezels that should work just fine for your LS-120 with a couple of simple mods

- Iomega made a Zip 750 kit for the MDD out of unobtanium when Apple stopped making stock Zip Kits

Head over to everymac and see the dynamic comparison of my G4 siblings:

https://everymac.com/ultimate-mac-comparison-chart/?compare=all-powerpc-macs&highlight=0&prod1=PowerMacG4012&prod2=PowerMacG4021&prod3=PowerMacG4028