Ordered one from eBay that "tested to power on". It has no hard drive. I looked it up and it says IDE was used for hard drives in this unit. Can I use a 4GB CF card and adapter?
-
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.
Powermac 6220CD
- Thread starter boitoy1996
- Start date
This system uses IDE for its hard disk.
You should be able to use a CF card, I haven't heard of any specific limitations against that in these machines, which I have seen people run bigger and faster IDE disks in without trouble. The only thing I can think of specifically is that you will likely want to find an adapter that only has one slot. I don't know if primary/secondary or master/slave was implemented on these machines, because there was only room for one IDE device.
If there's threads about using CF on a 630, that information should apply to this system as well.
If necessary, it also has an external SCSI port you could boot from.
You should be able to use a CF card, I haven't heard of any specific limitations against that in these machines, which I have seen people run bigger and faster IDE disks in without trouble. The only thing I can think of specifically is that you will likely want to find an adapter that only has one slot. I don't know if primary/secondary or master/slave was implemented on these machines, because there was only room for one IDE device.
If there's threads about using CF on a 630, that information should apply to this system as well.
If necessary, it also has an external SCSI port you could boot from.
What can I do to "pimp" this machine out? any good PDS cards?
What about a DOS Compatible card
To my knowledge, none of the DOS compatibility options on any previous systems work in 5200/6200 series machines.
The 6200 is pretty ho-hum in that most of the exciting LCPDS upgrades aren't worth it in that machine because they're designed to bring an LC1/2/3 up to slightly higher standards. The main thing worth putting in that slot on a 6200 is an Ethernet card, if you aren't able to find a comm slot card. Many older LCPDS cards (the IIe card in particular) outright won't work on the 6200.
The 6200 is basically the bog standard baseline inexpensive entry level PowerPC computer from 1995. It's a good machine to have in a collection, I'm going to pick up one (actually, a 6220 if I remember correctly) this year, but it's expansion options are extremely specific, and they're very tailored to home environments.
The main expansion it does have that sets it apart from many of the other Mac families at the time is an a/v input system and TV/FM tuner options. I don't remember if the 6200 had this option specifically, but I know that some 6000 series models (this could be 6360/6400/6500, which is an entirely new architecture, mind) had a digital video compression card built and labeled by Avid.
The 6200 is pretty ho-hum in that most of the exciting LCPDS upgrades aren't worth it in that machine because they're designed to bring an LC1/2/3 up to slightly higher standards. The main thing worth putting in that slot on a 6200 is an Ethernet card, if you aren't able to find a comm slot card. Many older LCPDS cards (the IIe card in particular) outright won't work on the 6200.
The 6200 is basically the bog standard baseline inexpensive entry level PowerPC computer from 1995. It's a good machine to have in a collection, I'm going to pick up one (actually, a 6220 if I remember correctly) this year, but it's expansion options are extremely specific, and they're very tailored to home environments.
The main expansion it does have that sets it apart from many of the other Mac families at the time is an a/v input system and TV/FM tuner options. I don't remember if the 6200 had this option specifically, but I know that some 6000 series models (this could be 6360/6400/6500, which is an entirely new architecture, mind) had a digital video compression card built and labeled by Avid.
The short answer is don't believe most of what you read about the 6200. It was written by people who were literally just guessing who ultimately had no place doing so. In particular, don't believe literally anything written about the 6200 on Low End Mac(1).
The 6200's serial controllers are the same ones used in all the other contemporary Macs. Any given model may or may not have some firmware problems that makes the use of extremely fast modems unusable, but the best way to find out is to give it a go (there is also a testing tool, I forget which OS discs it's on). At worst, just put Ethernet in it, since LCPDS ethernet cards are easy to find. (for example.)
(1) The context here isn't any malicious action on LEM's part, but LEM was founded in 1997, and in 1997 you could go into a used computer retailer and a Power Macintosh 6200/75 and a Power Macintosh 7200/75 were probably going to be the same price (a few hundred dollars.) the idea at the time was that they wanted to warn you against the 6200 because it is, for all intents and purposes, a worse machine than the 7200.
The gotcha here is that almost every single technical reason they put forth for why you should avoid the 6200 is basically fabricated. Someone said "oh that looks weird" and half filled in the blanks and came to an extremely wrong conclusion.
It has been discussed at length on this forum. There are some good reads online about it, but the short version is that while the 6200 is a far cry from the 9500, it's still a competent Mac in its own right and makes sense within Apple's product range at the time.
The 6200's serial controllers are the same ones used in all the other contemporary Macs. Any given model may or may not have some firmware problems that makes the use of extremely fast modems unusable, but the best way to find out is to give it a go (there is also a testing tool, I forget which OS discs it's on). At worst, just put Ethernet in it, since LCPDS ethernet cards are easy to find. (for example.)
(1) The context here isn't any malicious action on LEM's part, but LEM was founded in 1997, and in 1997 you could go into a used computer retailer and a Power Macintosh 6200/75 and a Power Macintosh 7200/75 were probably going to be the same price (a few hundred dollars.) the idea at the time was that they wanted to warn you against the 6200 because it is, for all intents and purposes, a worse machine than the 7200.
The gotcha here is that almost every single technical reason they put forth for why you should avoid the 6200 is basically fabricated. Someone said "oh that looks weird" and half filled in the blanks and came to an extremely wrong conclusion.
It has been discussed at length on this forum. There are some good reads online about it, but the short version is that while the 6200 is a far cry from the 9500, it's still a competent Mac in its own right and makes sense within Apple's product range at the time.
You pinpointed me exactly. I got my info from low end Mac. LEM and their "road apple" list is why I've been only wanting high end machines and have been making comments about LCs being junk. I was taking everything LEM said for the truth.
An okay-ish attitude to have if this is 1997 and you're dedicating $800 to the task of buying a machine that is around two to four years old and expected to last you two to four more.
It's honestly a pretty bad attitude to have if this is 2017 and you're spending money trying to learn what the platform was like at the time.
The platform is better represented by a machine like the 5200 and 6200 than the 8500 and 9500, mainly because Apple sold mountains more consumer machines than professional ones, and as I've said before, there's generally nothing you can do in 1995 on a 9500 that you can't also do on a 6200.
It's honestly a pretty bad attitude to have if this is 2017 and you're spending money trying to learn what the platform was like at the time.
The platform is better represented by a machine like the 5200 and 6200 than the 8500 and 9500, mainly because Apple sold mountains more consumer machines than professional ones, and as I've said before, there's generally nothing you can do in 1995 on a 9500 that you can't also do on a 6200.
None by Apple AFAIK, but pretty sure my Reply DOS Cards were for the PDS slot. Have to check the dates on them, they may have been designed for the PPC RoadApples. The 68lc040 socket was the interface for the first round of compatibles IIRC.
Can the 6200 notion, the first gen RoadApples were AWFUL! Get something like the 6290CD with a bit faster system bus and twice the L1 Cache for a better comparison.
Performa 6360 with PCI, L2 Cache Slot, higher (1024x768) max resolution and full 64bit data bus is the real deal in that form factor.
6300/160 was same spec as well, but NOT the horrible 6300/120 RoadApple. TERRIBLE bit of naming nonsense going on there.
Cory's pretty much right, but there's generally nothing you'd want a 9500 to do it on in `1995 that you'd deign to do on a 6200, given an option. While 90% of people could likely do 90% of anything they'd ever NEED to do on a 6200 90% of the time using AppleWorks, those other three ten percents overlapped with a vengeance.
It appears there's already a 6220, may as well use it. The 6290/6300 are "better" second-generation systems, the improved bus/CPU speed and slightly larger cache made up for a lot of the shortcomings of the original system (proving that the design itself was nowhere near as apocalyptically bad as people say it was, but.)
Of note is that some of the low end PowerBook 5300s also have a lot of these problems.
The 6360 should probably have been called the 4400, and Apple should probably have never built the 4400 that it did, but that's not exactly here or there.
If you want an example of a "good" consumer Mac, going all the way for a 6400 or 6500 is probably your safest bet, since those will already have two PCI slots, the same or better graphics (Apple had moved to ATi for that platform somewhere along the way, I think some of the faster 6500 revs), etc.
Of note is that some of the low end PowerBook 5300s also have a lot of these problems.
The 6360 should probably have been called the 4400, and Apple should probably have never built the 4400 that it did, but that's not exactly here or there.
If you want an example of a "good" consumer Mac, going all the way for a 6400 or 6500 is probably your safest bet, since those will already have two PCI slots, the same or better graphics (Apple had moved to ATi for that platform somewhere along the way, I think some of the faster 6500 revs), etc.
He can always snag a real motherboard for it. [}
]
6360 and 6400 are the same board but for the speed bump and taller, two slot PCI riser for the FuglyTower. I'd stick with either of those for playtime, they're rock solid.
6500 is both better and a lot worse at the same time. Much better resolutions and depths with the new graphics chipset and the VRAM doubled to 2MB. The speed bumps again and the bus is 20% faster, but that's likely its downfall. The 6500/Gazelle Architecture's bus speed is shared with the TAM along with that nightmare's incompatibilities when it comes to actually using modern I/O interface cards on its PCI Bus.
4400's pretty cool actually. Tanzania is an interesting architecture. I wonder if the same kind of problems crop up in the Tanzania to Tanzania II bus speed bump as we've seen with 6360/6400 to Gazelle in 6500 & TAM?
] 6360 and 6400 are the same board but for the speed bump and taller, two slot PCI riser for the FuglyTower. I'd stick with either of those for playtime, they're rock solid.
6500 is both better and a lot worse at the same time. Much better resolutions and depths with the new graphics chipset and the VRAM doubled to 2MB. The speed bumps again and the bus is 20% faster, but that's likely its downfall. The 6500/Gazelle Architecture's bus speed is shared with the TAM along with that nightmare's incompatibilities when it comes to actually using modern I/O interface cards on its PCI Bus.
4400's pretty cool actually. Tanzania is an interesting architecture. I wonder if the same kind of problems crop up in the Tanzania to Tanzania II bus speed bump as we've seen with 6360/6400 to Gazelle in 6500 & TAM?
How often do logic boards come up without the rest of the system? That seems like impractical advice.
Ultimately, logic board upgrades are a bad advice to give to this kind of question. It's about as useful as "Get a 7200 instead, those have PCI slots and G3 upgrades." and then answering a 7200 question with "Get a G3, those start fast."
If your only goal is to get a fast computer, apple.com sells fast computers to buy. If the goal had been to buy the fastest computer of a particular kind, I'm sure that would be the thread that was created, not a thread about what you can do with a computer that's already around.
Ultimately, logic board upgrades are a bad advice to give to this kind of question. It's about as useful as "Get a 7200 instead, those have PCI slots and G3 upgrades." and then answering a 7200 question with "Get a G3, those start fast."
If your only goal is to get a fast computer, apple.com sells fast computers to buy. If the goal had been to buy the fastest computer of a particular kind, I'm sure that would be the thread that was created, not a thread about what you can do with a computer that's already around.
I think I'm gonna hold out for a G3 mini tower. With wings. Gotta have the wings.
But you have to have a chassis that supports it
Anyways, guess what people? My CF Card and adapter arrived today and I have it all in the 6220. This is NOT a "Road Apple" as suggested by LEM. This machine, while beat up and not astetickly pleasing, is AWESOME. Having Flash memory as the hard drive makes it quiet, real quiet. It may not be top of the line even for its day, but it IS something that a 16 year old computer nerd in 1995 would have blown his college savings on, and been happy with every penny spent, and thats good enough for me.
Anyways, guess what people? My CF Card and adapter arrived today and I have it all in the 6220. This is NOT a "Road Apple" as suggested by LEM. This machine, while beat up and not astetickly pleasing, is AWESOME. Having Flash memory as the hard drive makes it quiet, real quiet. It may not be top of the line even for its day, but it IS something that a 16 year old computer nerd in 1995 would have blown his college savings on, and been happy with every penny spent, and thats good enough for me.
Similar threads
