-
Hello MLAers! We've re-enabled auto-approval for accounts. If you are still waiting on account approval, please check this thread for more information.
Low Density 6.0.x? 7.0.x?
- Thread starter CelGen
- Start date
Apple doesn't need to, they rely on hardware restrictions to try and stop people from using their software on non-Mac systems, so, in many ways, their method is worse than Microsoft, who doesn't care what you install your Windows on (you could install it on a toaster or a homegrown hand-wrapped system you made yourself from the ground up), as long as your license is in order
Taking it one step further, Linux/Unix derivatives obviously hold the top spot in this argument, nearly none of them have license validations and could care less what you run it on.
I think Apple's modern fascist hardware control of their OS is bull {(which is why I generally stick to System 7.0.1 or lower when it comes to using Apple operating systems [although I do own versions of System 7 Pro & System 7.1.2 to use on certain systems that are special to me]) although I understand why they do it, they're a hardware company after all, the OS is just the carrot on the stick they hit people with}.
Taking it one step further, Linux/Unix derivatives obviously hold the top spot in this argument, nearly none of them have license validations and could care less what you run it on.
I think Apple's modern fascist hardware control of their OS is bull {(which is why I generally stick to System 7.0.1 or lower when it comes to using Apple operating systems [although I do own versions of System 7 Pro & System 7.1.2 to use on certain systems that are special to me]) although I understand why they do it, they're a hardware company after all, the OS is just the carrot on the stick they hit people with}.
Last edited by a moderator:
To get back to the original point...for low density disks...
Everything up to 6.0.6 was on low density disks of some variety (either 400K or 800K). When the Classic, LC, and IIsi came out, Apple started using high density disks for the System Software.
There were also low density versions of the newer System 6 versions, but I haven't seen physical copies of them. Soft copies do exist--Apple has 6.0.8 on their server as four 800K disks and the 6.0.7 images are available on the System 7.0 CD-ROM.
System 7.0 was available on low density disks, as was 7.0.1 and, believe it or not, 7.1. I actually own a set of low density 7.1 disks, which even got the new labels with the black Apple logo (on lighter colored disks).
System 7.5 was high density only, but I seem to remember there was some way to get it on low density--maybe a coupon you could send in to Apple? Don't quote me on that though (my copy of 7.5 is a CD-ROM).
Nothing newer than 7.5 would be on high density disks, of course, since the Plus, SE, and II were all dropped in 7.6, and no machine made after them sold with 800K drives.
Everything up to 6.0.6 was on low density disks of some variety (either 400K or 800K). When the Classic, LC, and IIsi came out, Apple started using high density disks for the System Software.
There were also low density versions of the newer System 6 versions, but I haven't seen physical copies of them. Soft copies do exist--Apple has 6.0.8 on their server as four 800K disks and the 6.0.7 images are available on the System 7.0 CD-ROM.
System 7.0 was available on low density disks, as was 7.0.1 and, believe it or not, 7.1. I actually own a set of low density 7.1 disks, which even got the new labels with the black Apple logo (on lighter colored disks).
System 7.5 was high density only, but I seem to remember there was some way to get it on low density--maybe a coupon you could send in to Apple? Don't quote me on that though (my copy of 7.5 is a CD-ROM).
Nothing newer than 7.5 would be on high density disks, of course, since the Plus, SE, and II were all dropped in 7.6, and no machine made after them sold with 800K drives.
System 7.6 CD has folder with 20 HD floppy images for optional floppy installation
Just to clarify, System 6 gets you part-way into the 68030s (though if you have an '030, you'll probably be better off with 7.1.x/7.0.1/7.5.x). I have run 7.5.4 (yes, I have a copy) on a Mac IIci, though it's quite slow to boot and sometimes takes ages to do simple things like close a window or click a button. (I have loads of software installed though.)
Also, System 7.0(.1) does not run on anything higher than a 68040. (PPC support was added in 7.1.2.) For universal-ness, I suggest System 7.5.3. It runs on almost everything (albeit sometimes slowly) from a Mac Plus (with maxed RAM and a hard drive) to a PowerBook 1400c(s)/117. Some PowerPCs (the PowerBook 1400 and systems with the "Tanzania" motherboard) won't run 7.5.5, but will run 7.5.3.
But for actual use, 7.0.1 is far better than 7.5.3 on 68000s, 68020s, and slower 68030s (though it runs OK on these if you don't have too many extensions) and 7.6 is better than 7.5.x on PowerPC as it has more native PPC code.
Just my two cents on OS advice. (NOTE: I haven't used 7.1.x or 7.6.x.)
Also, System 7.0(.1) does not run on anything higher than a 68040. (PPC support was added in 7.1.2.) For universal-ness, I suggest System 7.5.3. It runs on almost everything (albeit sometimes slowly) from a Mac Plus (with maxed RAM and a hard drive) to a PowerBook 1400c(s)/117. Some PowerPCs (the PowerBook 1400 and systems with the "Tanzania" motherboard) won't run 7.5.5, but will run 7.5.3.
But for actual use, 7.0.1 is far better than 7.5.3 on 68000s, 68020s, and slower 68030s (though it runs OK on these if you don't have too many extensions) and 7.6 is better than 7.5.x on PowerPC as it has more native PPC code.
Just my two cents on OS advice. (NOTE: I haven't used 7.1.x or 7.6.x.)
7.5 is that bad on '030's? I've only run it on my Quadra, my 30 machines have either 7.0.1 or 7.1.
The problem is this - if you want anything greater than System 7.1.2 to run fast on your 68K machine, you need to remove the PowerPC Fat from the file's coding. It's simple math - if your system is 10MB (like on an LC-Like system) and your System 7.X.Y uses 7.5MB of that, how much is left for programs and data files? It is simply put - with your system and apps running on Virtual memory on the hard drive, if your system allows it, it's going to run slow!
But removing PowerPC Code from the 68K Machine's system will shrink it some 45% - 55%. Now your System 7.X.Y is 3.8MB instead of 7.5MB. On a 10MB LC-Like system, this gives you more room to play with. The same applies to your Apps. Now that they can it in RAM, they can run faster. A lot faster.
And this is true for all systems. In the past I done it for my Plus, IIcx, IIci, LCs and Duo, 190 and 5300 laptops. With the PPC Machines, I stripped out the 68K code. The machines all run fast. And there is room for apps and large files.
But removing PowerPC Code from the 68K Machine's system will shrink it some 45% - 55%. Now your System 7.X.Y is 3.8MB instead of 7.5MB. On a 10MB LC-Like system, this gives you more room to play with. The same applies to your Apps. Now that they can it in RAM, they can run faster. A lot faster.
And this is true for all systems. In the past I done it for my Plus, IIcx, IIci, LCs and Duo, 190 and 5300 laptops. With the PPC Machines, I stripped out the 68K code. The machines all run fast. And there is room for apps and large files.
This sounds like a great idea in theory, but I'm a tad unclear on one detail: How can you strip out ALL the 68k code from a 7.x system and still have it work? I was under the impression that there was still emulated 680x0 code scattered throughout until well into the OS 8.x days. Or do you only strip out the parts for which a native implementation is present?
A utility that could perform such stripping in an automated way, maybe via drag-and-drop, would be useful. Does anyone know if such a thing was ever made?
First off, yes. There are a few:
- "I Love Native"
- StripPPC (strips only PPC)
- Strip68K (counter-app to StripPPC, it strips 68K)
There might be a few others but I can't remember their names immediately.
It is worth noting that 68K Macs load programs in segments, unlike PowerPC Macs which load programs in large chunks. Usually only the code needed to perform a particular task is loaded into memory at any one time. That is why PowerPC Macs consume so much more RAM than 68K Macs. They always have more code in memory (you can turn on Virtual Memory and reduce memory pressure a bit, however). So stripping PowerPC code from FAT binaries will save you disk space but I am not sure you will see a huge amount of performance increase since I can't imagine that any PowerPC segment code would ever be loaded on a 68K Mac, FAT binary or not. (This is not true of PowerPC Macs and 68K code.)
As for running 7.5.x on a '030 … eh. It's not very pleasant. I've found that for me personally I get more enjoyment out of my vintage Macs if I stick as close as possible to the "shipping OS" as I can. That way the machine always performs like it did when it was brand new. Pushing an old Mac to the latest supported OS often just makes the machine feel slow and clumsy.
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm calling shenanigans.
I've made no specific optimization efforts except for disabling extensions and on boot-up, with Quicktime 4 installed, it's using 4 megs. (Specifically, 3861 kilobytes.)
I don't have VM on, but if I did, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see the system operate more efficiently.
That said...
Back in The Olden Days when I was using my 840av as a daily driver alongside a blue-and-white G3@450 (with a Yikes! board) and a TiBook@1000, I ran the original 7.1 release on that 840, in part because I wanted to try to do video capture with it. With some time and effort, I could probably make this PB180 do what I need with 7.1, but I might just properly configure Netatalk with AppleShare-over-AppleTalk next time I go to set it up.
This makes literally no sense to me. So little sense that there was just no way I could finish out the evening without pulling out my PowerBook 180 to look at the memory usage on my 7.6.1 install.
I've made no specific optimization efforts except for disabling extensions and on boot-up, with Quicktime 4 installed, it's using 4 megs. (Specifically, 3861 kilobytes.)
I don't have VM on, but if I did, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see the system operate more efficiently.
That said...
The main reason I'm using 7.6.1 is because OpenTransport and support for AFP-over-IP (I have a Micro EN/SC somewhere) works really well in this release, and tbh, with just one or two productivity-type apps open at once, it's fast enough.
Back in The Olden Days when I was using my 840av as a daily driver alongside a blue-and-white G3@450 (with a Yikes! board) and a TiBook@1000, I ran the original 7.1 release on that 840, in part because I wanted to try to do video capture with it. With some time and effort, I could probably make this PB180 do what I need with 7.1, but I might just properly configure Netatalk with AppleShare-over-AppleTalk next time I go to set it up.
This is my findings in the early 90s when PPC came out:
Typical 7.1+ System /PPC Code lay out in RAM
[**][Mac 68 Code][PPC code][68K Resources & Additional Code][PPC Resources & Additional Code]{variables and buffers in free RAM}
(Note: This is a generic program/OS map in RAM)
[**] is a 8 to 16byte test code for 68K CPU vs PPC CPU and sets the vectors to where the program starts (This aslo happens in Booting process of the machine.)
With this FAT System (both 68K & PPC code and resources) the program is only running what code it was told to go to by the test program. This only happens in FAT programs. If it was "Pure 68K" code, the PPC Processor would run it in emulatation mode. If it was "Pure PPC" code, the 68K would not be able to run it. Despite all that, the FAT program/OS is fragmented into 68K and PPC code segments; it would be more fragmented than stated in the above example. The points are this:
1) The mix of the two codes take up a lot of memory. That alone slows down the machine as it tries to adjust for space for variables and buffers needed by the program. Because of this alone, the system oftem crashes with "out of Space/RAM" errors on low memory systems like an LC.
2) In both the 68K and PowerPC processors (and in any processor in fact), when jumping more than a page of memory, 1 clock cycle is used up for each page jumped, not necessarily wasted but it is needed for the CPU to adjust registers. A page of memory can range from 256bytes to 1024 bytes or greater depending on the CPU.
Since PowerPC Code is interspaced with the 68K Code, when the CPU has to jump over the unused sections, it uses up clock cycles for each page jumped. This jumping of over unused sections slows down the program.
3) In eliminating or "stripping" either code, for that CPU the machine uses, two things happen:
a) Its memory footprint shrinks, giving more RAM for variables and buffers used by the program.
b ) Memory page jumping shrinks, freeing up clock cycles and making the processor run the code faster.
c) When stripping - what resources that are shared by both processors are kept.
- - - - -
Note:
I have done this years ago so that my Macs can run faster and run more apps, which they do. But I do not swap hard drives from system to system because of this - example: I do not swap the hard drive from my PB190 (a 68K cpu) to my PB5300 (a PPC CPU) and visa-versa because the code on the drives have been stripped for those machines. The same with my Mac IIcx/ci, LC475, 800, 950, PowerBook Dous 210 - 280 (68K machines), PowerMac 7100, 7500, 6214, 8100, 9600, PowerBook Duo 2300, G3s (PPC machines), etc. The speed increases is significant to notice on these machines.
Programs like Photoshop the increase in speed is noticebable. On MS Word, it is not. Some games there is an improvement as well but not all. And when I was building servers in the 1990s, server apps also saw a benefit increased speed. All this includes shorter times watching that spinning watch when it occurs. In either case, the smaller/stripped program also loads faster into memory
I do have copies of the original FAT programs in case I have to reinstall and then strip them accorrdingly to those machines.
These are my findings, and one does not have to agee with them. What works or worked with me does not necessarily work for you. But for me this is why it works. I can not explain it simplier than that.
This is not for the faint of heart. If you think you are going to screw up during code stripping, then don't do it. If you think you can and would like to try, then do. But in either case, you should have a back up of the original program/OS in case something happens (like your hard drive failing). It is best to have such backups on multiple media like floppy disks, CDs and Zip/Jazz cartridges for example.
Last edited by a moderator:
Note, I have something like 18 extensions installed in my IIci (16MB RAM). "stripping" might help it run better, but I am planning to downgrade to System 7 Pro (7.1.1) and run 7.6.1 on a PowerBook 1400cs/166 that I'm getting Monday (18 May 2015). Also, more RAM might help (the PB 1400cs/166 that I'm getting has 48MB).
And to talk about the original question, I could easily make an 800k System 6.0.8 disk, by using a 1.44MB disk and stripping fonts/DAs/disk utilities. It would probably take 3-4 800ks though, specially if I include a full installable System. (I could make a non-installable 800k 6.0.8 on a single floppy disk.) It would be quite tricky making a 400k System 6 boot disk, let alone an installer. Also, are there even any 400k-only Macs compatible with System 6?
And to talk about the original question, I could easily make an 800k System 6.0.8 disk, by using a 1.44MB disk and stripping fonts/DAs/disk utilities. It would probably take 3-4 800ks though, specially if I include a full installable System. (I could make a non-installable 800k 6.0.8 on a single floppy disk.) It would be quite tricky making a 400k System 6 boot disk, let alone an installer. Also, are there even any 400k-only Macs compatible with System 6?
Last edited by a moderator:
System 6 on an 800K Floppy is easy. System 7 on a floppy need 1.44 HD Disks.
Stripping extensions is another matter altogether. You need to look at what you got and need and remove that which you don't. Examples:
Zip/Jazz extension - Do you use a Zip or Jazz Drive? Some of them can work without the extension, so you should test it.
Microsoft OLE - WTF is that? I mean it. I see it all the time a and do not use it, nor does word as it operates without it.
Printers - what printer do you have and remove the rest.
IRA - InfraRed communications is great if your laptop has it. I only seen IR ports on a desktop on very few PowerPC Macs, none on 68K Macs. If it is in the Mac IIci System - remove it.
Other things - depends on you. QuickTime, QuickTake, QuickDraw - depending on the combination can crash on boot so you need to see what you need with that and put away the rest.
Stripping extensions is another matter altogether. You need to look at what you got and need and remove that which you don't. Examples:
Zip/Jazz extension - Do you use a Zip or Jazz Drive? Some of them can work without the extension, so you should test it.
Microsoft OLE - WTF is that? I mean it. I see it all the time a and do not use it, nor does word as it operates without it.
Printers - what printer do you have and remove the rest.
IRA - InfraRed communications is great if your laptop has it. I only seen IR ports on a desktop on very few PowerPC Macs, none on 68K Macs. If it is in the Mac IIci System - remove it.
Other things - depends on you. QuickTime, QuickTake, QuickDraw - depending on the combination can crash on boot so you need to see what you need with that and put away the rest.
Converting disks for system installation back and forth is not as easy as it sounds. If the installer expects a certain file on a certain disk along with certain other files and doesn't find them where it expects them to be, the installer can terminate.
Last edited by a moderator:
