| Author |
Topic |
|
ghoffmanpdx
Starting Member
USA
19 Posts |
 Posted - 08 Jul 2002 : 23:18:02
My eight y/o daughter who is a Linux admin wannabe thinks Macs are pretty cool (I can have her 660AV when I pry it from her cold dead fingers, says she....yes direct quote!) Anyway, she was checking out a couple of websites on my 6400/200 and she told me after 5 minutes what a piece of crap it is. She said her 660AV loads waaaaaay faster than mine 6400. I didn't believe her, but since I tried it for myself, I have to agree with her. So does my LC 575. I just never had compared before.So, has anyone else experienced this type of thing? Just curious, as it doesn't seem right to me. Mac 68K Psy-Ops
"Ya want Windows? Ya can't HAVE Windows!!" |
TiMacLover
Senior Member
USA
1282 Posts |
Posted - 09 Jul 2002 : 01:46:25
I had the same thing with my Quadra 610 and PowerMac 6100, the Quadra blew my 6100 out of the water.Jeremy "I'll see you on the Dark Side Of The Moon" - Pink Floyd Covert Ops
68k Hacks General 
Macs Liberated:19
ENTER THROUGH THE GATES |
Gothikon
Full Member
Australia
537 Posts |
Posted - 09 Jul 2002 : 02:10:38
How's your 6400 set up? ram/cache? I remember some friends of mine got the same machine with 16 Mb of Ram and no Cache they always complained about how slow it was. Eventually rather than spend the necessary 30 USD for another 32 MB of Ram and 256k of cache she blew a thousand odd on an IBM!! At least her kids still use Mac's.Also what system are you running, you want 8.1 at a minimum or 9.x I've had endless trouble with everything in between. And are you sure you're running a PPC version of the program and aren't accidentally running the 68k version? Talking about 6100's mine isn't too bad these days but I upped the ram and cache. The form factor is really nice but a good 68k or any of the newer PPC's can easily out perform it. Actually I remember reading somewhere that when the 6100/60 was finally released the supply of 60 Mhz chips had run out and Apple put in higher rated chips and underclocked them. Mine has a 66 in it but some people got luck with 80 Mhz chips. I think all you need to do is swap the crystal or maybe a resistor
|
ghoffmanpdx
Starting Member
USA
19 Posts |
Posted - 09 Jul 2002 : 08:24:14
quote:
How's your 6400 set up? ram/cache? I remember some friends of mine got the same machine with 16 Mb of Ram and no Cache they always complained about how slow it was. Eventually rather than spend the necessary 30 USD for another 32 MB of Ram and 256k of cache she blew a thousand odd on an IBM!! At least her kids still use Mac's.Also what system are you running, you want 8.1 at a minimum or 9.x I've had endless trouble with everything in between. And are you sure you're running a PPC version of the program and aren't accidentally running the 68k version? Talking about 6100's mine isn't too bad these days but I upped the ram and cache. The form factor is really nice but a good 68k or any of the newer PPC's can easily out perform it. Actually I remember reading somewhere that when the 6100/60 was finally released the supply of 60 Mhz chips had run out and Apple put in higher rated chips and underclocked them. Mine has a 66 in it but some people got luck with 80 Mhz chips. I think all you need to do is swap the crystal or maybe a resistor
136MB RAM not sure about cache. Not running 68K s/w on it. Running OS 8.6. I was reading something earlier about how they suck b/c they use preemptive multitasking, so when it's on the net, everything else slows WAAAAAAAAY down. But, still learning about Macs, so I don't know a whole lot about 'em just yet. Thanks. Mac 68K Psy-Ops
"Ya want Windows? Ya can't HAVE Windows!!" |
Captain Z
Mobile Ops Commander
USA
637 Posts |
Posted - 09 Jul 2002 : 08:35:01
But can her 660Av run iTunes and play MP3's? I think not.It sounds like there is something draging the system down in preformance. Do you have am abundance of extentions and stuff running all at once? How long has it been since you last did a clean install of the OS? Also, compare this:
My Mac Plus (2MB RAM, 20MB HD, System 6.0.8) will boot roughly twice as fast as my G4/500 (704MB RAM, 170GB HD, Mac OS 10.1.5). Does that mean that the Mac Plus is faster than a G4/500? No. It just simply means that the OS is smaller, simpler, and easier to load into memory. If you check her "About this Macintosh" dialog box to see how much memory she is using from the System Software. Then do the same to your 6400. You will probably find that you are eating more than double the RAM on yours than hers. ------------------
Captain Z - Mobile Operations Commander
68K Macintosh Liberation Army
20 68K Macs Liberated Visit Captain Z's Starbase of EV Stuff |
ghoffmanpdx
Starting Member
USA
19 Posts |
Posted - 09 Jul 2002 : 08:41:31
quote:
But can her 660Av run iTunes and play MP3's? I think not.It sounds like there is something draging the system down in preformance. Do you have am abundance of extentions and stuff running all at once? How long has it been since you last did a clean install of the OS? Also, compare this:
My Mac Plus (2MB RAM, 20MB HD, System 6.0.8) will boot roughly twice as fast as my G4/500 (704MB RAM, 170GB HD, Mac OS 10.1.5). Does that mean that the Mac Plus is faster than a G4/500? No. It just simply means that the OS is smaller, simpler, and easier to load into memory. If you check her "About this Macintosh" dialog box to see how much memory she is using from the System Software. Then do the same to your 6400. You will probably find that you are eating more than double the RAM on yours than hers. ------------------
Captain Z - Mobile Operations Commander
68K Macintosh Liberation Army
20 68K Macs Liberated Visit Captain Z's Starbase of EV Stuff
Well, now you have made me question a few things. I thought I killed the unecessary extensions, but I'll double check that. And it's not so much that hers boots faster, it just IS faster all around. Oh well, I'll double check things. Thanks for the feedback. Mac 68K Psy-Ops
"Ya want Windows? Ya can't HAVE Windows!!" |
aftermac
New Member
USA
80 Posts |
Posted - 09 Jul 2002 : 14:08:31
quote:
She said her 660AV loads waaaaaay faster than mine 6400.
Get a G3/G4 and make her eat them words. Specifically, a Blue & White G3 or better. Personally, I think that ALL of Apple's PPC Mac's before the G3 were underperformers. Apple was going through some rough times, and had really confused product lines. They would purposely slow some machines down, so they didn't step on another lines toes. Or, crank up the price on the high end so not to do the same. You see some of that now, but it's not as bad because of the clear and simple product lines. I'm not saying this has anything at all to do with your problem, but Apple was a really confused company when they made your 6400. Aftermac A bandoned, F orgotten, T ortured, E ndangered, R etro, M acintosh, A cquisition, C ommando 5 Apples, 23 liberated 68k's, 9 contraband PPC's, and a Duo Dock |
|
Anyone else share this view?
68k of the Week: kastegir's PowerBook 180.