Problems Installing 7.5.3 on a 7300

[l008com]

I'm trying to set up a wide variety of OSes on this old Mac I have. Officially, it supports 7.5.5 thru 9.1. So as you may have guessed, I get an error when I try to install 7.5.3 on it:

The problem is, I don't have the original disks for this ~20 year old Machine. And 7.5.3 is the only 7.5.x that was distributed as a full install. I have the 7.5.5 updater but that needs 7.5.3 first. If I could "trick" the 7.5.3 installer somehow, just to let me install it, I could then run the updater before ever even trying to boot it, and I shouldn't have a problem. I poked around in the installer file in resedit but I didn't see any obvious things to edit that might fix this. 

Any suggestions?

 

[Anonymous Freak]

http://macintoshgarden.org/apps/macintosh-mac-os-755-update-755-pm-73869600-5500-6500-series

 

[l008com]

http://macintoshgarden.org/apps/macintosh-mac-os-755-update-755-pm-73869600-5500-6500-series

Sweet, thanks! 

 

[Elfen]

It is better to use 7.6 on a 7300 than 7.5.5. The 7.5's series were literally patched up as new Macs were made (like your 7300 not working on 7.5.3 but will on 7.5.5) and 7.6 does away with whose pesky System Enablers for a particular Mac. Footprint wise, 7.6 takes up less RAM space than 7.5.

 

[l008com]

I have separate partitions for 7.5.5, 7.6.1, 8.1, 8.6, 9.1 and one for OS X. As of right now, they're all up and running except for OS X. I need more than 64 MB of RAM for that :-/

 

[Elfen]

OSX on a 7300? You have the G3 CPU Upgrade for that? Even with 128mb, it will be disappointingly slow. 128mb I believe is the minimum for OSX on a G3, and at least a 500mhz CPU. As you know the rule - More is better (more RAM, more MHz.)

 

[Anonymous Freak]

I remember running Mac OS X on my 8500/120 with 128 MB RAM. It was almost (almost!) unbearably slow, running 10.1. But it was my only even-with-a-hack Mac OS X-capable machine at the time, so I took what I could get!

 

[Elfen]

You must be commended for that! Somebody give this man a medal!

I seen something like this in the PC World, trying to get a Modern Windows OS to run on a 486 machine! LOL! True, they got Win 7 & 8 to run on a Pentium, but on a 486? DAMN!!!! If I find the link again, I'll post up!

 

[Anonymous Freak]

Yeah, one of these days I mean to install Windows 10 on my dual 1 GHz Pentium 3. Officially it meets minimum specs!

 

[l008com]

I'm not actually going to try to use this computer for useful tasks. It's more just to have, just for the hell of it. And even an unbearably slow 10.3 or 10.4, will still make it easier to transfer files to and from this machine, if I ever need to use it to do any conversions or anything. It doesn't need to be fast, but that said, if anyone knows where I can get some RAM for it, I'm all ears

 

[techknight]

I still remember when I Tried to install an early beta of Longhorn on a 400Mhz P2. I think it took 2 to 3 days to complete the install. 

 

[CC_333]

I once ran Mac OS X 10.1.4 on my Rev. C iMac with *32* MB of RAM!

The poor thing took at least ten minutes of constant drive thrashing to do anything useful, but it actually wasn't terrible once it was going (I was surprised it'd run at all!).

I also ran it, more regularly, with 64 MB (or was it 128?) and it was actually okay for browsing the internet (which, in 2006 or whenever it was, was actually not a totally unreasonable thing to do on a 266MHz G3).

Of course, my 1.7 GHz Celeron with 96 MB of RAM running Windows XP SP1, 2000, and 98SE (before the motherboard died) ran circles around it no problem! :lol:

c

 

[Cory5412]

It used to be relatively common to run OS X on beige PCI PowerPC Macs. My 7300 came back to me some number of years ago running either 10.1 or 10.2, on the original /200 CPU with 64 megs of RAM.  For the first few releases of OS X, more RAM is probably more important than OS X.

Today, my 7300 runs either 7.6.1 or 9.2.1, I forget where it landed when I last used it. It's one of the things still in my storage locker.

My personal strategy with selecting an OS tends to revolve around installing something, setting it up, trying it out, and then moving along until iv'e tried some different things, and then going back to whatever I liked the best. I tend to skip 8 because on new enough hardware where you need features of 8.6, you usually end up needing features of 9.x or newer anyway, and on old enough hardware where 8.1 is under consideration, or you're running 8.6 "for performance reasons" the machine would be faster under 7.6 anyway. Probably the biggest exception is that there were a few machines I was using as servers that had big disks, which I ran with 8.1.

By 2006 or so, G3s on the Internet was becoming a bit of a stretch. I had a G3/500/1M PowerBook G3 and a G3/450/1M blue-and-white (with 896M of RAM) and they worked okay with 10.4, but I could tell their time was coming.

Yeah, one of these days I mean to install Windows 10 on my dual 1 GHz Pentium 3. Officially it meets minimum specs!

Alas, for it does not -- Windows 10 requires CPU and chipset features that, as far as I know, no Pentium III has, and very very few Pentium Ms have. 

Probably the biggest stretch I've done was Windows Vista and 7 on a PIIIm@1.13GHz with 384M of RAM. It's not as far a stretch as some, but it would take a few minutes to get going. It's amazing what a difference some RAM and one CPU generation makes. I've got a 1.1GHz Pentium M with 1.5GB of RAM and while I wouldn't say it "flies" -- Windows 7 and Office 2010 on it are useful quicker than they were on the PIIIm.

 

[l008com]

How do you get OS X to install on a PCI Mac with 64 MB of RAM? Do you install with more then pull some out? XPostFacto isn't letting me install ANYTHING without at least 96 MB of RAM. 

 

[Anonymous Freak]

Of course, my 1.7 GHz Celeron with 96 MB of RAM running Windows XP SP1, 2000, and 98SE (before the motherboard died) ran circles around it no problem! :lol:

c

Yeah, I ran XP on my Sony PictureBook, Pentium MMX 266 MHz, 64 MB RAM. It worked fine until SP2.

 

[CC_333]

Yeah, SP2 is fine and good, but it does tend to bog XP down, even on newer hardware (once optimized and cleaned up though, it regains most of its speediness).

On running Vista on older CPUs, I once ran (by accident) Vista on an 800 MHz AMD Athlon and I *think* 512 MB of RAM. It actually ran fairly well, as I recall.

c

 

[IPalindromeI]

The big problem is XP without SP2 is quite buggy and horrifically insecure, ESPECIALLY at the time.

I run Windows 7 on my 867 MHz P3 with 512 MB RAM - it's very usable. Windows 10 wants a WDDM capable GPU, and on the CPU, PAE, (PPro minimum) SSE2, (then P4 minimum) NX. (then Prescott minimum)

 

[Cory5412]

How do you get OS X to install on a PCI Mac with 64 MB of RAM?

On supported hardware, 10.2 and I think even 10.3 will just install. I had it on an iMac/233 with either 64 or 96 megs of RAM and although it ran very poorly, it did run.

On unsupported hardware (such as the 7300/200) I don't know what the person did. he didn't exactly have random Mac memory laying around, as he was primarily an x86 person at the time. I suspect that he either modified the installation media not to check for memory or to check for some lower amount of memory, like 24-32M, or passed some arguments in with openfirmware.

I never duplicated the setup after, I had been planning on upgrading that Mac a bit years ago, but it never happened.

Yeah, SP2 is fine and good, but it does tend to bog XP down, even on newer hardware (once optimized and cleaned up though, it regains most of its speediness).

By the end of my last time with XP, it was actually on the 1130MHz Pentium IIIm and when I got Vista on there, it wasn't appreciably faster or slower than my install of XP had been.

On anything faster and with more memory, I've always found Vista/7/8/8.1u1/10 to be better at handling the resources given to it.

I run Windows 7 on my 867 MHz P3 with 512 MB RAM - it's very usable. Windows 10 wants a WDDM capable GPU, and on the CPU, PAE, (PPro minimum) SSE2, (then P4 minimum) NX. (then Prescott minimum)

It's time to go buy a GX280.

 

[just.in.time]

I008com, I say give it a go with 10.2 and update to 10.2.8. It is the best you will be able to do without a G3 upgrade if I remember correctly.

Anything less than 10.2 was meh performance on supported hardware.

Having run 10.2.8 on a PowerBook 3400c/240 with the 128mb expansion (brining it to the max 144mb of ram), it was usable. Nothing great... At all. But definitely usable for simple tasks. Good luck