Jump to content

Cory5412

Administrators
  • Content Count

    7455
  • Joined

  • Last visited

5 Followers

About Cory5412

  • Rank
    Daring Pioneer of the Future

Contact Methods

  • AIM
    Cory5412
  • Website URL
    http://www.stenoweb.net/

Profile Information

  • Location
    Arizona, USA

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Cory5412

    What is the current view on these hard drives?

    Just wanted to add: Backups. Backups! (backups) All good advice in terms of checking on disks and ways people can monitor to make sure their disks are healthy, but, that's not a replacement for backing up your data. (backups) Re modern Seagate: I've had some trouble with a couple of their externals from early on in the USB 3 era, like, a series of 2TB "expansion" disks I bought all behaved oddly when inside their original enclosures, but have all since worked fine in other computers as bare SATA drives. Also, I use Seagate Desktop drives in my main server and there was a batch of disks I bought in 2010 that all went bad from 2017 to today, but all the replacements for those have been running strong. Otherwise, I've had mostly good luck with my modern disks. Since I started buying USB-based internals, I've only ever had two die - one was a 750GB WD MyBook, on that one the bridge board went bad so I was able to pop it into a SATA computer, and a XIMETA NetDisk, which died after, gosh, probably close to 7-10 years of being run constantly. I don't remember whose mechanism was in that drive, internally.
  2. Cory5412

    Cheap IDE on scsi bus solution?

    There's "niche" and then there's "you might actually be the only one on the forum or in the scene doing that." This is closer to the latter, I think. Anecdotally, I have really good experience with regular SSDs on my modern computers. The two SSDs I've had longest are still kicking, being relocated from machine to machine as I find a use case wherever they move to for something bigger and put the money into it. Once I'm done with The Big Torrent I'll probably put my 180GB Intel 520 in the Mac mini, replacing the 2.5" 2TB disk I bought and installed in it. My ThinkPad T400 still has a 2010-era 128GB Toshiba SSD that came out of a MacBook Pro in it. Around ten years ago there was some math pertaining to some of the then-current SSDs that basically suggested most modern regular-duty SSDs should be capable of endurance along the lines of a couple decades of full-effort use (like, write the full capacity of the ssd continuously) for some number of decades. The one SSD I've personally used that has died was a Sandisk in my Mac mini. It was kind of tough because I did some patches and the machine never came back. It's absolutely my own fault I wasn't running more frequent updates, and the one most critical piece of data there that seemed lost, was eventually found in an image backup I had made from the previous year. Otherwise, I largely trust my SSDs to keep truckin' on, but I'm moving away from storing data directly on client computers, with the exception of anything stationary enough to keep a daily backup running on. There's a lot more going on behind the scenes these days, but I've never explicitly heard that having the OS do TRIM is obsolete as a concept. Not that I'm aware of. CFast might, but that's an entirely new (and, more modern) standard. I can't actually say that I've ever heard this. Ten years ago, when cameras still shipped with CF, it was performance and capacity. Most of the use cases for both kinds of cards involved a lot less random read and write than exists today. The cycle was almost always "write until full", then swap cards, read, delete, repeat. Can't speak to "flash" media such as USB pen/key flash drives, CF/SD/CFast, but on SATA SSDs, there's a percentage of NAND that exists that has been over-provisioned for exactly this purpose. Given that SSD media generally features 0 seek time, this shouldn't have any performance impact.
  3. Cory5412

    What is the current view on these hard drives?

    The 8500 and 8600 are both the same physical shape and height as their 9 siblings, but they're both short three PCI slots. They have a 5.25" mounting pad at the bottom of the case, which I'm reasonably confident is explicitly for this purpose. This is from the service manual for the 8600, 9600, and 9650 family of systems: From: http://tim.id.au/laptops/apple/legacy/pm8600.9600.ws9650.pdf In an 8600, you'd be able to drop a 5.25" FH disk in that spot without blocking any slots. A 47-gig version of such a drive would be utterly wild, but if you needed it. [disclaimer] I've been reading a lot of '90s macworld of late These were probably both "the last dying gasps" and also the highest performing single disks you could get at the time. For the 8500/8600 in particular, which were marketed explicitly as desktop multimedia authoring systems, which basically means capturing and editing standard definition video for CD-ROMs, such a drive would be a reasonable addition to the machine. A couple years later, in 1999, with DV, an average PC hard disk could have DV streamed to it with no trouble. That wasn't particularly true of most stock Mac disks in 1996. EDIT: Whoops, I was a little too hasty. I could have sworn up and down for literally the past 20 years the 8500 and 9500 shared a case, but per http://tim.id.au/laptops/apple/legacy/powermac_8500_series.pdf it appears it's actually the same height as the 800/840/8100/8200. Given that information, you're correct, one of these likely won't fit in an 8500, at least not without some.... "work". My apologies.
  4. Cory5412

    Cheap IDE on scsi bus solution?

    This is where I am too. I would love an AV drive for my 8600, for the laughs, but in all practicality, the SCSI2SD v6 has been perfect for it, and my money on future disk purchases is almost certainly better allocated to more SCSI2SD v6es. Mine would be better if I upgraded to the next card up in Samsung's line, or to the Sandisk card my friend is using. A lot of this comes back to my personal large skepticism that Mac OS 9 is meaningfully faster on anything faster than G3/300. Even with that skepticism it's not hard to believe that the experience of using a beige Power Mac of any kind is improved by having 0ms seek times.
  5. Cory5412

    What is the current view on these hard drives?

    I'd say, if you can, start setting aside for one or more SCSI2SDs, but, use what you've got until it stops working. To the extent possible, make backups of any data you think of as important. This drive absolutely yearns to be installed in an 8500 or 8600.
  6. It's clear from the text Apple understood that The Standard for the kind of machine the 190/5300 were was moving. Notably, exactly as jt says, that's still a different kind of machine from the 2300. The 2300 is "like" the 5300 in that it's essentially a PPC upgrade integrated into an existing platform. I haven't reviewed its dev notes to feel qualified saying it's literally a mobile 6200 the way the 5300 is, or if the starting point was different. But, that's not strictly speaking important. To put it in PC terms, the 5300 was Apple's competition to a Compaq LTE or ThinkPad 700 series, where the 2300 was more like competition to a ThinkPad 500 series. It's not exact 1:1, but. I don't disagree that it's kind of a bummer that the 190/5300 shipped without CD-ROM internally, Notably, except of course for subbing "floppy" for "swappable drive bay", that's basically the same list of differences between the PowerBook 180 and 520/530 and their most comparable Duos. Heck, it's known that the 2400 and the 3400 are close to as close as possible literally the same machine, just packaged differently, and nobody calls into question that it's viable that they're different machines. (In fact, I'd argue that it's highly likely the 2400/3400 are much closer than the 5300 and 2300 are, but that's not super duper relevant at the moment.) So, basically, they aren't "essentially the same" - they exist in two separate product ecosystems and fill two separate roles in a laptop product line. It's just like how the 7500 and 8500 are "essentially" the same and yet they both exist as justifiable, separate machines in Apple's product stack. I'm not 100% sure Apple *could* have built that system when the 5300 was launched even if it wanted to. Notably, it launched quite close to its desktop relative the 6200 and to the first PCI-based Macs, the 72 and 7/8/9500. I think it's fair to say that Apple just didn't have the wherewithal to launch a totally new PCI-based laptop and a totally new PCI-based desktop family and a refreshed PowerPC based inexpensive consumer notebook all at once, at their size, with their resources, and to a certain extent, with what existed at the moment. Especially given that most people also want Apple to have built the 6200 from the ground up while still having it cost $1399 at the same time as all of this. So, yeah, it's a bummer, but I don't think it ruined the machine any more than the 180 or 540 were ruined by not having internal CD-ROM, even though that was becoming common by that time, and ultimately, Apple really did have a lot going on at that time. I think asking them to do an awful lot more than that would've pushed some other things back, or potentially resulted in an even weirder or more problematic machine than the one we got. Plus, then you get the 1400, which is essentially the bugfix for the 5300, and which, due to its re-designed enclosure, gets a CD drive added, and then the 2400/3400 come out and push the prices on the 1400 way down and you have a lineup, all PowerPC, with an "affordable, but flexible" model, an ultraportable, and a flexible premium performance powerhouse, compatible with the existing 5300/190 modules.
  7. Cory5412

    Cheap IDE on scsi bus solution?

    That's an IDE limitation. A SCSI machine with the right chain of adapters and a new enough OS (say, 7.6.1 or 8.1 so you can get HFS+) would have no problems with something bigger. That said, not really sure there's a really compelling reason to put over a hundred gigs of storage in something that age, perhaps unless you're using it as a bridge server. Gorgonops addresses this in better detail. The answer is kind of "no, not really" but the other part of the answer is "but, it doesn't actually matter that much anyway." Like I said above, I use an SCSI2SD v6 in my Power Macintosh 8600/300 with OS 9.1 on it and it's "fine". Probably more responsive overall than if I had a stock disk from the era in it, but there are faster/better AV-focused hard disks meant for capture destinations that would likely outdo my SCSI2SD in raw transfer rate. On newer machine, CF is an option, and on anything with PCI slots as an option, PCI scsi, IDE, and SATA cards introduce a lot of potential. I'm not sure that potential matters an awful lot for anything pre-G3, but, again, in my experience on a "high end" but still close to stock 604ev system is that the SCSI2SD is fine.
  8. A couple other vendors were working on stuff for the smaller CD-ROM format, but none of that ever really materialized for Macintosh, so it would either have to be something where most support switched over to the smaller format by default (which would've been fine in many tray-loading systems, but not in caddies) or where software would have to be published twice. Regarding MO from Apple: I think that would've been interesting. It would be, to my knowledge, the only instance of Apple building something other than DVD/CD/Floppy for their own machines on their own. Most of the wording from any source about any future PowerBook model (1400 in particular) suggested that third parties could have built them, not that Apple itself had been considering it. I mean, it's well known that, essentially, the period between when Jobs left and came back (we'll call it 1986 to 1997) are when Apple had its worst leadership. But, "the smallest machine" is an actual, specific goal, and PowerBooks had operated for years with external CD drives with no troubles, so I don't see how this is a problem. A bummer, yes, proof that the later 1/2/3 approach where there were a few different models meeting different needs was probably important? yes. "ruined"? eeeehhhhh... no.
  9. One more thought: OmniWeb might still has a version that will run on 10.4, but if I remember correctly, its SSL certificates and rendering engine are tied to the host OS version, so it won't really be any better than Safari, except for any potential quality of life improvements you like, pertaining to things like side-tabs, page preview, multiple rows of bookmarks, etc.
  10. The built-in version of Safari might work, but probably only on basic mode, presuming it accepts Google's SSL certificates at this point. After that, really the only viable game in town is tenfourfox. I don't know what performance of tenfourfox will be like on a G4.
  11. Cory5412

    Cheap IDE on scsi bus solution?

    Video is the only use case I can think of where it would be particularly compelling to go with a faster IDE drive over a SCSI2SD. That said, if you're looking into 68/80/SCA adapters anyway, and spending money on that, and you don't need or want the zero-seek advantages of a SCSI2SD, then, it'll probably cost less to just use one of those newer/faster SCSI disks rather than even bothering to find an IDE adapter. But, again, this discussion is largely only relevant to the slim group of Macs fast enough to be doing work that benefits from higher sequential write performance and not have a PCI slot or reasonable onboard IDE controller. Basically: the X100 power Macs and perhaps the IIfx/950/800/840 depending on what stuff you've got put into them. And, as Gorgonops says, only if you're actually doing that work. I've got the SCSI2SD in my 8600 because I happened to have the SCSI2SD laying around, but truthfully if I was capturing video with my 8600, I'd pop in a SATA or IDE card, not bother with an adapter to one of its onboard SCSI buses. EDIT: yeah, I just looked, if you're buying cabling for under $20, another $20 and you can get a reasonably good hard disk for day-to-day stuff, a couple more dollars and you can get disks that were probably part of late SCSI era workstations and servers. That's admittedly cheaper than a SCSI2SD. It'll be faster than what was stock. I think it'll fall down to either a preference to save a few bucks now versus having to deal with that supply of disks dwindling in the future, and aesthetic issues like whether or not you care in particular about "feeling" things such as hard disk sound.
  12. Cory5412

    Couldn't help myself...

    Mac OS X is criminally bad at handling itself without an SSD. I put a 2TB hard disk in my Mac mini, because I had a need to have that much space and didn't want to use or buy another external, and it's making the particular task I wanted to do (torrenting) much worse than it would be, even if I was just torrenting to a spinning disk and booting to an SSD. One more issue that may or may not be hurting, the SATA Cables inside some of the MacBook Pros is known to bed. If the SSD itself doesn't help, replacing the SATA cable should.
  13. Cory5412

    Cheap IDE on scsi bus solution?

    That's totally wild. That's the card my friend used and their initial results for big writes were reasonably good, even on the old firmware, and got better with updated firmware and a better card. Anecdotally, my results with the LaCie formatter and leaving the properties for the card itself were way better than when I tried to make it pretend it was a "supported" Apple or Seagate drive and then use Apple's own formatter. That may or may not make a difference, I don't have time to test right now, but if you have some time, I'd consider picking up Silverlining 6.1 or an appropriate version and trying that. One more note: My friend was testing in, of course, DOS and Windows 98, as pictured. My 8600 is running 9.1 (and of course I'm using HFS+ as the file system, and I made a 31gb partition) and my Beige G3 was running 9.2.2. As of my testing the other day, the 8600 has a couple gigs on its disk so it's not like I was testing the very beginning or end of the card. I'll have to see about putting my v6 in the 840, 6100, or another older Mac and see what kinds of results I get. I don't happen to have any NuBus or PCI SCSI cards, so I can't speak to whether that's causing different results. Because, like... your are all half or less what mine are, and I am using one of the onboard buses in the 8600 (I forgot which one though, to be perfectly honest.) I'll see when I have time to back up all the data on the 8600 and move it away and put the device in a different Mac and do some more benchmarking. The 840av is likely to be the "best" comparison to both a IIfx+Jackhammer and a 475. For completeness, what OS were you running at the time? I can and likely will try the original 7.1, 7.6.1, and 8.1 on my 840av. I have a 6100/60, on that system I'll likely try 7.6.1 and 8.1, and perhaps 9.1.
  14. They're "ok" - it's slower than a real G4, on my i5-2400 it's probably comparable to a g3/300. In MB4, with 6100 scores set at 100: 8600/300: CPU: 411 FP: 750 G3/300: CPU: 999 FP: 748 QEMU i5-2400 CPU: 1053 FP: 325 I also can't get sound to work, but I'm less worried about that. I was looking at it as a possible supplement to vtools and testing location, plus admin and monitoring from work where I can't very reasonably keep an os9/ppc mac. I also thought about building a set-up qemu disk image for vtools access. The main thing that has me annoyed is mouse access is so weird. Plus I can't get command or modifier keys to work, so it's very cumbersome to use compared to the way I'd use a real Mac, and I'm not even really a Finder power user by any means.
  15. In any specific case, if someone has such a disc that works, yay! For my part, the reason I'm recommending the eMac CD specifically is because if you are going to go on ebay and pay money for a 20-year-old CD, it may as well be the best possible version of that CD, and the eMac 2003 is that one. Similarly, if you're going to go through the trouble of dealing with all the shenanigans involving burning a bootable Mac OS 9 CD (and, I have confirmed the one on MG is the correct disc, which is annoying because they are labeled with both 691- numbers and 693- numbers, which relates to something I was discussing with @defor at some point) but I haven't gotten it to burn-and-boot yet. I'll get out a CD-RW and have at it at some point this coming week but my weekend time and energy is rapidly drawing to a close.
×