Regressing to an earlier OS?

[Gorgonops]

But in this context it refers to the early grey G4 Macs. Most of them are capable of running 8.6.

I'm curious about this. According to EveryMac every AGP Mac after the original Sawtooth ("Gigabit Ethernet" on up) shipped with 9.0 preinstalled, only the original Sawtooth had 8.6. As a *general rule* Macs won't accept OSes earlier than what they shipped with but there are exceptions, do you know from experience that you can run the Sawtooth version of 8.6 on later machines?

(Wikipedia's article on OS 8 claims the 8.6 that came on the Sawtooth was a machine-specific version, the retail CD wouldn't run on it. Which is a bad sign.)

 

[Gorgonops]

It has been quite a few years, so I hope I am remembering correctly.  The layout program makes a pair of files that are necessary for the machinery to punch a layout.  It makes them automatically with a command from one of the menus.  I think one of them is basically an ASCII tape.   When we upgraded to OS 9, it would no longer make them, the second file, the "Report" would come out as being made by an unavailable application.  We did find a way to make Simpletext translate them, but it was deemed too cumbersome and time consuming to make it work.  I believe it required quite a bit of manual editing.  Regressing to 8.6 made it work like they needed it too.

Just spitballing here, how does the machinery receive the finished file? Is it pushed over a serial port directly from the Mac or somehow network/sneakernet-ed over? I can't help but wonder if emulation just might be a viable option. QEMU's Mac emulation is working *reasonably* well these days, and Sheepshaver might also work. Both can run 8.6.

 

[NJRoadfan]

I see mention of IIcis being used. Its likely the software is 68k and can run on many more stable and mature Macintosh emulators.

 

[Cory5412]

There was someone doing some work on getting 8.6 running on later G4s, claiming it was a more stable OS release even on hardware where it won't officially run, but I'll be perfectly honest: I have a super hard time believing that and I recommend against doing it in a scenario like this one. The person doing the work didn't really seem to have a strong understanding of what it is they were doing or why they might want it or what might cause or fix some of the problems they were having.

There are a few scenarios where "wink wink" it just kind of works to run an earlier OS than what something shipped with. Most Sandy Bridge Macs should hypothetically be able to have 10.6 installed on them, any other Mac that shipped through a long run of different OS releases (MacPro 5,1 and 6,1 and the MD101LL/A), and so on.

It might be possible that if the Gig-Ethernet is the same hardware as a Sawtooth except for the Ethernet controller that you can run 8.6 on it and use a PCI network card 8.6 supports with it. The QS'02 will "run" OS releases from before its OEM version (in theory anything supported by the dA or QS), but will be unstable and networking won't work correctly.

QEMU/Sheepshaver isn't a bad idea. At the very least, I'd say to give it a go. 

 

[dcr]

QEMU/Sheepshaver isn't a bad idea. At the very least, I'd say to give it a go. 

Is there a thread around here dedicated to discussing emulation?  I'm curious as to the best options these days.  I know the ones I use probably won't run under macOS 10.14 so I will need to update to newer emulators one of these days.

 

[Cory5412]

There was a super brief discussion thread about the emulators at the launch of 10.15 - most if not all at this point of the emulators have been updated to 64-bit for OSX 10.15 functionality.

 

[MOS8_030]

I'm curious about this. According to EveryMac every AGP Mac after the original Sawtooth ("Gigabit Ethernet" on up) shipped with 9.0 preinstalled, only the original Sawtooth had 8.6. As a *general rule* Macs won't accept OSes earlier than what they shipped with but there are exceptions, do you know from experience that you can run the Sawtooth version of 8.6 on later machines?

(Wikipedia's article on OS 8 claims the 8.6 that came on the Sawtooth was a machine-specific version, the retail CD wouldn't run on it. Which is a bad sign.)

No, I do not. I was going by the information on everymac's page.

I've worked on many, many G4 systems but I was usually only interested in OS9 if I was working on the Classic side.

If I ever ran across a G4 with 8.6 I probably upgraded the OS to 9.

 

[Iamanamma]

I'm a bit confused.  Under OS 9, did the application no longer create the two text files?  Or was it that the two text files it created were not, essentially, readable?

As I said, it's been a long time since we went through all of this, so my memory is fuzzy.  The programming process results in four files total.  We start with a "single layout" then Add multiple "single layouts" to a multiple layout.  The designations for these two files are part.sl ad part.ml.  These can be opened and viewed by any classic OS, 6 through 9.  The problem comes when we have to create the other 2 files.  The first is the "fc file" or "part.fc" that tells the machine what it is actually supposed to do.  When you open it with Simpletext, it doesn't look like much of anything, just lines of text that say things like M00, M10, M12 and G02X39.98, with each relatively short piece of text being followed by a carriage return.  I do know that if any 1 letter, any 1 line, or any 1 space is out of place, it will not work.  The second is the "FC report" or part.fcreport" which is printed out to tell the operator what material to use, what size it should be, and what tools are needed in the turret, and any other information needed to run it.  This will not open in OS 9 without the dialog box that asks you to pick something to use to open it.  I don't remember what exactly was wrong with the FC file, but having to choose a translator for the FC Report was irritating the programmer who felt it was slowing him down too much.  

 

[Iamanamma]

Just spitballing here, how does the machinery receive the finished file? Is it pushed over a serial port directly from the Mac or somehow network/sneakernet-ed over? I can't help but wonder if emulation just might be a viable option. QEMU's Mac emulation is working *reasonably* well these days, and Sheepshaver might also work. Both can run 8.6.

Hi Gorgonops

We have an ethernet network with an Appletalk bridge on it.  The machine operators drag the files they need onto their IIsi via Appletalk.  We replaced the Sneakernet decades ago because our environment is so full of oil, dirt, and grit we couldn't keep the floppy drives clean and were trashing mountains of floppy disks. I tried using Basilisk for emulation, but could never figure out how to get things from my iMac to the G3s.  They are not on speaking terms, LOL.  Plus, I don't think there is any way to make a IIsi talk to an iMac without a NUBUS card.  The IIsi units do not have an available slot for an ethernet card, the comm slot is hogged up by a proprietary card that has a monster dongle on its external port. If memory serves me right, the dongle is the "motion" board which controls the servos on the machinery.

 

[dcr]

This will not open in OS 9 without the dialog box that asks you to pick something to use to open it.  I don't remember what exactly was wrong with the FC file, but having to choose a translator for the FC Report was irritating the programmer who felt it was slowing him down too much.  

Would it be possible/permissible for you to send a sample set of correct files (OS 6/7/8) and then a set of equivalent incorrect files (OS 9), probably in a StuffIt .sit file, so I/we can compare them under OS 6/7/8 and OS 9 to see what the issue might be?

I'm vaguely remembering that OS 9 maybe did something with creator and file types and I'm wondering if perhaps that is the problem.

 

[LaPorta]

Hi Gorgonops

We have an ethernet network with an Appletalk bridge on it.  The machine operators drag the files they need onto their IIsi via Appletalk.  We replaced the Sneakernet decades ago because our environment is so full of oil, dirt, and grit we couldn't keep the floppy drives clean and were trashing mountains of floppy disks. I tried using Basilisk for emulation, but could never figure out how to get things from my iMac to the G3s.  They are not on speaking terms, LOL.  Plus, I don't think there is any way to make a IIsi talk to an iMac without a NUBUS card.  The IIsi units do not have an available slot for an ethernet card, the comm slot is hogged up by a proprietary card that has a monster dongle on its external port. If memory serves me right, the dongle is the "motion" board which controls the servos on the machinery.

Even if it may be slower, you can likely still find USB to serial port adapters that will allow you to run AppleTalk over serial connection from the IIsi's printer port to the iMac.

 

[Cory5412]

Hm. You shouldn't need to do that if iMacs are on Ethernet - or at least, the same ethernet segment your LT/ET bridge is on.

In terms of emulating: What you might consider is setting up a machine as a file server. You will want to test this, but it's probably fine for your file server to be running OS 9. 

I believe AppleShare IP 5 on Mac OS 8 on beige hardware can also do multi-homing, so you can join it directly to a serial localtalk LAN and a tcp/ip+appletalk ethernet LAN.

With this all set up, you can run 8.6 in a qemu or sheepshaver emulation and use TCP appleshare to talk to the file server and then get files you need form that onto your 68ks that run the fabrication machines. As far as I happen to remember QEMU doesn't support appletalk, but I need to try it again at some point.

Granted, this all adds a couple layers to everything and so it might be easier to just keep looking for G3s/G4s or beige PPC Macs.

Incidentally, I did macbench 4 on QEMU running OS 9.2.1 on my PC at home, which has an i5-2300 in it. It benches about what a Beige G3/300 does - so this isn't super high performance, but that's still "fine."

 

[Iamanamma]

Hm. You shouldn't need to do that if iMacs are on Ethernet - or at least, the same ethernet segment your LT/ET bridge is on.

Everything older than the G3s are on a good old fashioned Appletalk daisy chain.  There is an outlet for the Apple talk network in our switch room and that has a Farallon Appletalk to Ehternet bridge plugged into it.  The other end of the bridge is plugged into the ethernet switch.  The G3scan see the G4s.  The G4s can see the G3s.  The G4 that is on OS 9 can see the iMacs.  The Imacs can't see anything unless they are are OS 9 or better.

I really need to follow the KISS rule when setting up stuff for out guys.  If I can keep it so they just have to click the Chooser to find what they want, they'll be happier, and I'll be less stressed out.

 

[Gorgonops]

It is definitely possible to do regular "non-TCP" Appletalk from BasiliskII (and Sheepshaver I imagine, although I don't think I've done it; my experience with doing it from BasiliskII is *very* old) but I don't think the default way they set up the network when you're running on a macOS supports it; you need to either set it up as a direct "bridge" to a physical Ethernet device or, if you use the conventional TAP network, set up some Appletalk routing between the tap and the physical interface that pretty much requires using Linux as the host. *If* you can get it set up like that then it should show up in the Choosers of the machines behind the Appletalk bridge. (I assume you're essentially using the host that generates the files as the "server"?) Bridged networking should also be possible with QEMU, I believe... maybe I'll take a crack at setting that up, I think I have a classic MacOS image on my MacBook.

What might be *slightly* more intuitive to set up would be to use a separate file server from the machine that's running the emulator that generates the data files to stage them on. Either an older MacOS that still supports classic Appletalk (support for that lasted until... 10.2?) or NetaTalk would let you set up a server that works with both classic Appletalk and Appletalk-over-IP, and connecting to an Appleshare IP server works out of the box with the standard BasiliskII/Sheepshaver configs. Then the workflow would involve mounting that share on the emulator, either dropping the generated files into it manually or, if possible, setting up the program so it generates them directly in the share, and accessing *that* from the IIsi's.

 

[Iamanamma]

if you use the conventional TAP network

I don't know what this means

requires using Linux as the host

Um, I don't even fully understand running a Mac OS Server, Linux is waaaaayyyy over my head.

(I assume you're essentially using the host that generates the files as the "server"?)

I think that would be a fairly accurate Assessment from what little I know about servers.  We never used a server until we were using OS X in the office, and needed to share our accounting package and our Filemaker databases.

 

[Gorgonops]

I don't know what this means

Don't worry about it. The TL;DR is that the standard way ("slirp") that BasiliskII and Sheepshaver get network provided to them when running on macOS doesn't let classic Appletalk work, and the alternate way still won't work out of the box without some trickery. Both are effectively like having the virtual Mac behind a router or firewall that doesn't let the sort of packets that Appleshare uses through. (Appleshare IP does work *outgoing* because it can translate outgoing TCP/IP connections.)

Looking at the docs the short answer is it's nontrivial to set it up the way that would let it work. Here's a recipe for setting up the necessary bridging between a 'tap' interface and a virtual one. I wouldn't want to vouch for it until trying it. Unfortunately it looks like the network options for QEMU under macOS are essentially the same, there's no "native" bridged mode, so to make QEMU work would require the same bridge setup. Which, again, is totally doable (the recipes for it look just like the Sheepshaver doc I linked to) but intimidating to set up if you're new to this.

think that would be a fairly accurate Assessment from what little I know about servers.  We never used a server until we were using OS X in the office, and needed to share our accounting package and our Filemaker databases.

In principle you could use any old Mac with file sharing enabled to be the go-between as long as it supports Appleshare IP for clients. (With this idea you'd basically set up a love triangle where both your virtual machine running 8.6 and the client hosts use this third party to exchange information.) To others following this thread, does personal file sharing on any pre-OS X OS support TCP?

 

[Iamanamma]

Forgive me if I am crossing threads, but I think this one was where someone asked me about the problems we encounter when we try to use our punch program on OS 9.  The problem is not making the files as I earlier thought.  I had one of the programmers help me recreate the issue.  The problem is printing out the FC file (which is just a list of lines that tell the turret punch what to do), or printing out the FC report which tells the operator which tools he needs, where to put them, and a bunch of other stuff necessary to making parts. The files look identical on the screen, but if you try to print them, the Mac running OS 9 locks up. Every. Time.

 

[CC_333]

The files look identical on the screen, but if you try to print them, the Mac running OS 9 locks up. Every. Time.

It could be some kind of new feature in OS 9 conflicting with the software, because at it's core, 9 isn't really that different from 8.6; it's primarily some extensions, control panels and system additions that differ (things such as multiple users and Classic support).

Removing and disabling these extras might help?

Like, maybe try dropping the Mac OS ROM, System, Finder and "System Resources" files from an OS 9 install onto an 8.6 install, leaving everything else as is, and see what happens (probably a fantastic mess, but it might work?).

c

 

[Iamanamma]

Next regression question:  my boss found me  a G4 for sale online that would have come with OS 8.6.  The owner gave me the serial number, and I looked it up.  He has OS X 10.3 installed on it.  I would want to take it back to OS 8.6.  Are there any reasons I could not do that, i.e. any firmware updates that would prevent it?

 

[Cory5412]

Yes, you'll need to find and buy or burn a Mac OS 8.6 CD that originally came with that computer, boot from it, repartition+reformat the drive, and then you'll be able to restore or reinstall that OS version.

A retail 8.6 CD likely won't do it, but it would depend on the specific machine, often a machine that ships with a specific OS version has hardware not supported by the retail version of that OS CD. (iMac and Mac OS 8.1 is a great example.)