Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About Cory5412

  • Rank
    Daring Pioneer of the Future

Contact Methods

  • AIM
  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Location
    Arizona, USA
  1. Not having read the article yet, one more anecdotal thing is that there was another server article in... gosh, I think it was September 1999 MacWorld. It compared ASIP, IRIX, Solaris, NT4, and a beta of OS X for workgroup file service. Perhaps predictably, ASIP lost. I'll have to reread that because I think that issue is on Archive.org.
  2. So, kind of going back to the worthwhileness of 100 megabit. ryaxnb21 in #68kMLA on irc.oshaberi.ne.jp (the official channel!) found this tidbit in a MacUser magazine: The WGS80 is, as you know, a Quadra 800 and FDDI (if you don't know) is 100 megabit token-ring-like networking standard. I have no idea what the overall infrastructure of the test network. Using normal AppleTalk, the results are disappointing. I don't know what the special file transfer utility does differently except perhaps, IDK, uses TCP/IP Instead of AppleTalk or uses the native FDDI protocol. I'd still love to see tests with that ethernet card. EDIT: It was July 1995, PDF is here. On the PDF, it's page 52. (these PDFs were taken from some kind of sampler or reference CD rom where the ads were removed.) I have yet to totally read the article, It sounds like there's a few different things going on and they were testing for a few different things. The focus of the article is a little less about improving one mac's experience by switching a desktop to 10/100, and a little more about improving a 40-desk workgroup's experience by changing network technology or swapping out a server.
  3. This is insanely interesting. Did Sony ever do anything else to say why you might want to do this, or was the thinking at the time merely that you might want to save some room? I also love that they put LANC and analog output on it, even though most of the advantage of DV output was to import it into the computer (or onto another device) digitally, unless those were for a program monitor. Going back to that lab, what ended up being the reason these were chosen instead of any of the other more conventional DV or DVC decks? In that particular situation was it just about having one fewer piece of equipment to avoid having walk away?
  4. This appears to, verbatim, be the Wikipedia 68040 article but with some random (looks like automatically generated) links and associations. By sheer luck, it has picked up on a few that actually directly related to the '040 chip in particular.
  5. Thank you! It's actually super interesting, I had always basically presumed that those were more or less all illetigimate or (and, I know this one says as much to the contrary) that these were generally used machines, in the style of, later on, ShreveSystems and MacGuide. Around 1997 or so, all of the "regular" catalog resellers suddenly started listing their prices in the Mac magazines, that must have been because of the change Jobs made. Worth noting that at these prices, you could easily make the reverse case of what I did above (admittedly: using a bunch of numbers from ~1990, taken from reviews and announcements a few different places), that at $3333 for a IIci vs. $4444 for a Q700, it's reasonable to just drop a video card of your liking into the IIci and get going with that configuration. Although, none of that class of machines was "for you" per se if you were specifically optimizing for price.
  6. Unfortunately, for whatever reason, prices simply Were Not Posted in MacWorld at the time, otherwise it would be interesting to go to magazines from the time and see what the catalog/magazine sellers were charging for, say, the IIci and the IIfx at the time. It would make for a better comparison than what follows. If memory serves, the stack just before the launch of the 700 and 900 had the machines they "replaced" selling for around 1000-2000 more a pop. The IIci started in 1/0 config at $6300 and the IIfx started in 4/0 config for a bit under $8700. The IIci included onboard video that slowed the system down and could only do 512x384, 640x480, and 640x870. The IIfx did not include video at all for that price(1). I think that the Wiki-quoted prices for the 700/900 are for basic configurations with some RAM and a hard disk. ALso note that the 700/900 have onboard that is extremely good for 1991. They can do 1152x870@256 in stock configuration, and thousands with the VRAM upgrade. They can do lower resolutions at 24-bit. This is pretty close to what the Apple 8•24 and 8•24GC can do, except generally the Quadra graphics can do it faster, although how much that mattered would have depended on the work you were doing. My guess here is that in addition to not having room for it at the time, they figured that IIci and IIfx owners were probably adding video cards and Ethernet cards close ot universally, and if the onboard options were as good as the top-of-the-line offerings from that time, they'd save you a slot and you'd be up a slot. (a IIci/IIcx with video and ethernet installed has one slot available, a II/IIx/IIfx with video and ethernet installed has four slots available, whereas the Quadras start with the then-best-in-class versions of those things and, as such, have more available expansion for other things.) The reasoning doesn't necessarily hold up if you keep the machine long enough to need, say, to be able to do 24-bit color at 1152x870 (the first Apple graphics solution to do that was the 4-meg configuration of the Power Mac 7100/8100 HPV card), but whether that matters depends a lot on what else you're doing. Anyway, from a 1991 perspective, the 700 and 900 are really a great deal if you didn't already have a late Mac II and were shopping around for a top of the line Mac. (1) I'm going to qualify this by saying I did that research a few years ago and didn't source it extremely well in that article. I wrote "GFX" and I don't know if i just forgot or if they popped in like a Toby for that price or what.
  7. Going back to unproductively complaining about how many slots a midrange machine from 1991 (advertised almost always with a 13-inch monitor, worth noting): I was advised to look at a Quadra 700 motherboard. The board is totally full. It's not for any addressing reasons, just all the hardware they added in building the Quadra filled the board and that's almost certainly why it's got two instead of three slots. I imagine for the release of the 650/800, they were able to lay it out more efficiently or coalesce a few components into fewer, bigger chips.
  8. It doesn't have to be wild, just a timed file transfer test. Pick a protocol and a file and copy it from a server to your machine. Then, install 10/100 ethernet and move the cable and copy it again, time both times. FTP might be a good way to do it because many FTP programs keep logs of what happened, so you could defer back to the computer having timed itself. RAMdisk based testing would be interesting, especially if you're considering generally using a network server for everything, which is one situation where it would make most sense to me to install a 10/100 Ethernet card.
  9. Notably, the 700's successors did in fact add that third slot back in. Just because there has to be a "reasonable" explanation doesn't mean it has anything whatsoever to do with the OS identifying the onboard Ethernet device (or graphics!) as if it were a NuBus slot. My original point here was to suggest that a two slot Mac doesn't deserve the title of road apple. If you look at the block diagram on the Quadra 700, it does too, so I suppose I'm confused as to how this would shape up differently on the two sets of machines. Do the AV/PPC Macs specifically enumerate them differently or is it possible that my original speculation was correct and even the non-AV Quadras do not logically show that Ethernet is a NuBus device (which would make sense to me, because physically, it is not.) Ultimately though, even if somebody does produce a screenshot of TattleTech or another information tool saying that Ethernet is a NuBus device, it doesn't really prove anything. We know from the block diagrams that even fi the OS presents them as such, these devices aren't actually NuBus slots, and if you look at the diagram JT posted above, we know that there's more than just six possible ID spaces for NuBus "devices" in the memory map, leading back to the point that from a logical addressing standpoint, Ethernet didn't prevent a three-slot Quadra 700.
  10. Don't you have a 700/900/610/650/800/950/840 or 6100/7100/8100/9150? You could do it.
  11. So, ultimately, you're guessing. I think you can count something as being a pretend-NuBus device if it exists behind the NuBus controller in the architecture. However, Ethernet and Video are both directly on the main system bus, as with the PDS slot. Worth noting here is TattleTech can basically print whatever it wants on screen. If it prints that the Ethernet and video are nubus devices, it will be flat out lying.
  12. Is there some kind of document showing specifically that NuBus slots or ports (akin to PCIe lanes on modern architectures, I suppose) must be deployed in groups of three? Is it part of like one of the hardware dev notes or Inside Macintosh? The other thing moving from some of the II series to the Quadra is that the Quadras also have onboard video, although I believe that video moved closer into the center of the architecture, which might explain why the 900 doesn't have four slots and the 700 isn't limited to one, presuming its architecture deploys three "ports". On the Quadra 700 developer note (P.15 of the PDF) block diagram, Ethernet does not look like it's part of NuBus specifically. Ethernet is directly on the bus, NuBus slots are behind a NuBus controller.
  13. One more thought: If you already have the card, I'd say just pop it in and try. At worst, it won't work and you can pull it out and either try it in another system or if it turns out it's really not a Mac card, use it in a PC if you want.
  14. I don't know why the 700 ended up with only two slots, but as far as I can tell, there's no specific technical reason why. The 900 is otherwise nearly identical, technically, and it got five slots and Ethernet, and the 650/800 have three slots and Ethernet, so I don't think Apple would have made the decision to cut Ethernet in favor of a third NuBus slot, especially given I'm presuming part of their motivation here was that they figured Quadras would be part of high performance Ethernet networks. Regarding Ethernet overhead: It's not more than 20%. I'd be surprised if it was much over 10%. Just yesterday I was talking to someone about networking speeds and they did a speedtest.net test on their machine (connected to a 10/100 switch) that got a bit over 90 megabits per second. Certain protocols like PPPoE (used by some DSL/fiber internet providers) add a little bit, and there's also an ATM overhead incurred on many ADSL connections. (VDSL2 and AT&T U-Verse ADSL2 is often EFM, which has a lower overhead.) Protocols within TCP/IP have different overhead, for example there may be different overhead or compute power required to transfer a file using... say... SSHFS or SFP using compression, plain FTP, AppleTalk, SMB/CIFS, and HTTP. Plus within each of those, you get variations in client and server software and of course there's overall network conditions. (i.e. a transfer from your house to mine might go slower than either our network connections is capable of. The other thing to consider here is that when I say I saw a PC do 90 megabits on Ethernet, it was HTTP using a modern web browser and on a very modern system relative to all of this. Unless the thought process here is that with system 8.1 and TCP/IP based appleshare (say: served by Windows 2003 or Netatalk2 on Linux) volumes will be significantly faster than using a local SCSI disk (which, I would believe if I had literally ever been impressed by networking in Classic Mac OS, which I haven't been) then I personally struggle to see the value of a 10/100 card. Anything you'll get for a NuBus-having Mac off the Internet is going to be small enough that if you're downloading it to the system using 10-megabit Ethernet, the transfer times aren't likely to be meaningfully improved, and it seems like in general most people are still interested in putting in big-fast SCSI disks instead of setting up file servers, the one situation where it would make perfect sense to splurge on an advanced network card. Ultimately, there's some loss to be had using SCSI networking, but on a Mac, because Classic Mac OS is generally bad at networking, and because anything without onboard ethernet or slots is likely relatively slow anyway, you're not losing out on performance that would have been there with a better interconnect. (To the extent, by the by, that I actually think for most purposes one of the serial-based EtherWave products would probably be fine, All that said: I would very love to see like timed file transfer tests done on various network connections. Seeing actual numbers would be very helpful for people evaluating whether one of these would be worth one of their slots, especially on systems that have both a limited number of slots and onboard Ethernet that works fine already.
  15. If it exists and it has a Mac firmware: yes. Just casually searching around though, I haven't been able to find solid evidence that a GeForce 6200 existed in just-PCI format. I would be wary of the possibility that it is actually a PCI Express card for the last generation of power Macintosh G5s. (Though: seems like the baseline card at the time was the 6600LE.) It looks like there's no GeForce 6x00 drivers for Mac OS 9 though, so you won't get acceleration with it on Mac OS 9.