Jump to content

Cory5412

Administrators
  • Content Count

    8537
  • Joined

  • Last visited

6 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. I love my 840av, and my love for the 840av is absolutely helping drive my desire for an 8500. it's kind of silly, because I've got a 6100, a Power120, a 7300/200 and an 8600/300, so it's not like I'm short on beige PowerPC per se. The worst part about that pre-K2(1) tower case really is that it's so brittle. Opening one is annoying, but opening it and then having all of the plastic pieces fall off is really the annoying thing. These days many of the 7-series and desktop Beige G3s are most of the way. (I'm like 70% sure the 8600/9600 case was nicknamed/codenamed "K2", in similar fashion to its contemporary the Outrigger on the 7200 through Beige G3 and InstaTower for 6400/6500. Anyone know whether or not that's true or if I entirely made that up? I'll look eventually.)
  2. Cory5412

    Centris 650 surprise

    Nice Find! It seems like case/badge swaps were common on these. I would like to do some benchmarks at some point, because the 950, 800-650, and 840 each have different go-fast tricks and might be suitable in different scenarios. The 800 (and I believe 650 should) can use interleaved RAM, and the 840 doesn't. The 950 of course has a higher RAM capacity and more expansion bays and slots. That's also before 040 upgrades and accelerators. I've got a friend with a 650 that's been upgraded and chipped and it's running at like 45 or so MHz. He does some Apple II dev stuff that if i remember correctly doesn't work on PowerPC, so that uplift is nice.
  3. haha, nice. DIdn't realize those would also work on PowerPC Macs. Performance-wise, that's likely similar to the DOS compatibility card for the 6100, One thought. Earlier up I mentioned cache sizes, and then in my car I realized that in this generation of machine, the caches were separate SIMMs installed on the motherboard, and weren't integrated on the CPU card. So, you could pop a bigger cache in if it doesn't already have 512k or 1Meg. One other thought: in the '90s Apple sold a 233MHz 604e upgrade card for owners of basically everything from 7500/100 to the /200MHz systems who wanted just a little bit of a push. (Or a lot, if you were on a 7500/100.) My official recommendation is to track down one of those! I think it would be real neat to run one of those and an 8500 loaded up with Apple-brand upgrades from the era would be really neat. You might even consider grabbing one of those LaCie-built external hard disks and if you don't already have one, a Multiple Scan 17/20 or AppleVision-ColorSync display, just to complete the look. To be honest, the 8500 isn't a machine I've thought an awful lot about and now I kind of want one myself.
  4. Cory5412

    ADC video card that works for 6400 ?

    That's not too bad, then. More than an equivalent display that just has DVI, VGA, and a USB hub would cost you, but worth it if you've got one of these displays and want to use it.
  5. Random 8500/8600 notes: It's super interesting to me to see people's thoughts on this machine because it feels like, both in 1995-1997 and today, everybody reads it a different way. It's really no different than a 7x00 but in a slightly bigger case with video output (and ultimately: faster CPUs) but the price rift between it and the 9500/9600 often meant the 8600 was seen as the highest end possible system for office or personal use, with the 9000s relegated to workgroup server or ultra high end graphics workstation uses, or Avid video editing setups where six PCI slots were absolutely mandatory. I too typically interpret the 8500/8600 (I'm being careful to frame it this way because the positioning absolutely changed from first to second gen) as a fairly high end content creation box, sitting above the 7500/7600, which have video input, which I tend to think of as being for video conferencing rather than multimedia work. The 8500 and 8600 also had faster video disks available, which the 7000 series did not, and as I mentioned above, more cache, even in otherwise matched configs (7300/200 and 8600/200, primarily). I suspect a lot of people using them as office boxes were mostly doing it because of the minitower form factor and growing display sizes (multiple scan 17s, 1705, and 20 being inexpensive and viable for high end excelbox functionality relative to a couple years prior), and not becaue they needed the second disk bay or a half-height drive or an a/v disk or video output or anything quite like that. Incidentally, I went ahead and looked at 8500 configs on everymac: 8500/120 1995-08-07 to 1996-04-01 8500/132 1996-04-22 - 1996-09-19 (same date as 8200/100 and 8200/120) 8500/150 1996-04-22 - 1996-09-19 8600/180 1996-09-19 - 1997-02-04 If this is accurate, the 8500 was technically discontinued entirely on April 1 1996 and then re-introduced entirely at two new speeds a couple weeks later and then speed-bumped to a single new speed later in the year. I'd be entirely unsurprised to find out that this information is wrong, however. ANd, customary to mid-late '90s Apple, you could absolutely have found one of these after discontinuation. Probably! Re that wire, they're informally referred to as bodge wires and on 68k boards you usually see them as in-place upgrades on early board revisions (which, probably not for an 8500 that shipped as a /150) or as impromptu fixes for bad traces during testing. So, there's a couple systems where you'll see a lot of different examples with the same fix and some where not many of them had that fix. So, I don't think it's a prototype. It's the last of at least three generations of machines to use its case and it's a mid-model speedbump, (I very sincerely don't know why there was three weeks where the 8500 was off the books entirely.) THe black case is very interesting. You could make the argument it's in part because Apple knew their beige plastics weren't going to hold up long term, I have books from 1993 that talk about how bad the Quadra 800's case is, compared to everything else Apple built, so it might have been an attempt to save the model or make things better who bought one ahead of what I presume Apple already knew about, the big redesign of the 8600/9600. This is a more interesting upgrade strategy than what I typically see, which basically involves an extremely formulaic approach to turning every PCI PowerMac 7000/8000/9000 into a worse version of a Power Macintosh G4. I love RAM and storage upgrades and I like all the weird little cards you could get for these things when they were new, and to a certain extent I see why people upgraded to G3s in-situ, especially before the prices on brand new Power Macs absolutely cratered in 1998. (It was to the point where a brand new G3 desktop only really cost a bit more than a G3 upgrade and some other upgraded parts for a PCI PowerMac would've cost.) Lifecycles in general fascinate me and I can see why in the early-mid 2000s people were interested in filling 9500s and the like with all the bits to make a Power Mac G4, because on the eve of the Intel-based PowerMacs, all the bits to upgrade a 9500 to run 10.4 pretty well were fairly cheap and it would be serviceable in its second or third life. I see why people are interested in that but I just am not. I've got a 6100 with one, the 7100/8100 didn't support it but the 7200 and all the other first round of PCI PowerMacs supported them, maybe it was a 7200?
  6. Very nice find, and great that you were able to get it running again! I know I say this every time but I'm going to vote for leaving it more or less stock, perhaps save a storage upgrade - whether that's a USCSI drive and contemporary disks or a SATA drive and some totally baller 2TB disks (the max the machine will run) - they'll be a huge boost for video capture in particular which is absolutely what an 8500 would love to do. Or: use period upgrades: If it doesn't already have it, I'd say to pop a VRAM upgrade in and if you want some contemporary fun, there was an Avid Cinema card for this machine, and there's also the PC Compatibility card with video input via GIMO, which the 8500 should have if I'm remembering correctly. There was a Rage card with some video compression and in/out that might be fun in this machine too, even though that would really be a better fit for a blue-and-white or a 7300. (It was also talked about in macworld at the time as an option to both add video and slightly better gamer graphics to a 6400 when those were new.) If you want, a /180 or /200 CPU from basically any other 604 powermac should run here and will probably get you a bit of a boost. If you can choose, 8600/9600 /200 CPUs have more cache than the ones from the 7300/7600[JP]. I largely still don't believe that system 7 really benefits much from a G3, except on paper in benchmarking scenarios. a blue-white G3 or a powermac G4 will probably run all that software faster if performance is your top priority. (i.e. building a powermac g3 out of an 8500 results in a worse powermac g3 than if you just built/bought a powermac g3) If you were to do video on it is probably the one exception, but even then I'd be tempted to leave it stock and just deal with waiting. An accessory you might look at is the apple quicktime conferencing kit, mostly just for the kick of doing isight style videos on '90s hardware. (I need to pull my own such cam out of storage). If you can source one, a quickdraw accelerator or an ISDN card would be a neat add, if not strictly speaking "practical." We talked about this on Twitter but that black interior frame is just wild to me. To be honest if I had this machine I'd very consider running it open because that frame kind of looks cool, compared to other machines I've seen. I don't really think it's a particularly early machine, I'd have to go check applespec or everymac but IIRC the 8500/150 was a later SKU even, following a /120 and /132, (but I could be mistaken, my apologies and I'll make a note of it if I go look and am wrong.) Also, the 8500's case uses mostly identical plastics to the 840 and 8100/8200, and perhaps even the 800, so that's certainly not early production, either. As stuff disintegrated, were you finding it was the black case or the other beige bits surrounding it?
  7. Cory5412

    ADC video card that works for 6400 ?

    Definitely a good note. Does anyone have a line on what the DVI to ADC adapters even cost these days? I don't want to imply that a 6400 isn't worth it but I'll put bet you can probably get something like a dell ultrasharp 1908FP cheaper at a local thrift store. When I last looked it Wasn't Cheap and they also don't support the 17-inch CRT Studio displays. I second the general recommendation to get a Cube if you want one anyway and use your ADC monitor with that system (or any other relevant powermac G4 or G5) and pick something a little easier to connect for the 6400 -- whether that's a Multiple Scan 14 or 15, which would be beautiful with it, or a 2000s 4:3/5:4 business LCD.
  8. Cory5412

    ADC video card that works for 6400 ?

    It's my understanding that this is a 5500/6500/TAM problem, and not a 6400 problem, because the onboard video on the 5500/6500/TAM was, itself, an ATi Rage. (Or perhaps just because of weirdnesses with the platform, I've heard both explanations.) Those cards all work fine in the 7000/8000 series Macs, and I believe also the 4400, which use the same graphics the 6360/6400/5400 do, so I have no real reason to believe it would be a problem in a 6400. "Stick a Rage in it" was pretty much MacAddict's recommendation for the 6400 when they were new, too. Heck, I don't think this is a good idea, but as far as I know nothing is stopping a Mac PCI Radeon 9200 or 9250 from running in a 6400.
  9. Cory5412

    ADC video card that works for 6400 ?

    Yeah... probably. That or they pulled bakc on advertised resolutions because some of the RAM is expected to be used for textures, or to push sales of Radeon 8000/9000, still, jarring to see for exactly the reason you stated, cards with much less VRAM will happily do that res.
  10. Cory5412

    ADC video card that works for 6400 ?

    From that page: I'm absolutely baffled that a 32-meg Radeon 7000 won't do 1920x1200 or 1600x1200? That feels like it can't possibly be an actual technical limitation of the hardware.
  11. Cory5412

    Solid State Drive for G3?

    No such limitation with PCI PATA cards, provided that the cards are themselves new enough to not have the LBA48 limit, which is what that 128 gig thing is, with not only G3s, but most G4s up through either the MDD or the QS'02 and 867/1000 TiBook. SATA and SCSI don't have the limit, but an IDE card that's from the same period as a beige (or even early G4s) will.
  12. Cory5412

    Solid State Drive for G3?

    The only real disadvantage to using a SCSI2SD in this scenario is that the Beige G3 can take some advantage of newer disks with better performance on its IDE bus and/or coming off of its IDE slots.(1) If the machines boot up in the morning and run one program all day, that benefit isn't going to be noticed, I suspect. You might be able to use the energy saver control panel to schedule a boot up a few minutes before you expect anyone to need the machine and then put the application you use in the startup items folder so the app you want is running when you open the door and turn on the lights. (1) As a footnote: I say "some" because in my experience the Classic Mac OS (7/8/9) is a flaming pile and its performance doesn't really scale upward with better storage. Largely, the newer and faster an OS9 machine you run, the more likely it is to do stuff like just stall out at random points or rapidly switch between feeling really fast and feeling impossibly slow. This is why most of the time when people talk about decking out Power Mac G4s, my comment is that what they're really building is something that would be great at running all the same software you could get in the late OS9 era, more reliably and faster overall, on OS X 10.3/4/5. I get that Mac OS 9 is a unique experience, even if you run literally all the same software on it - I even prefer it, I just think it's not worth wasting the money on upgrades that don't really improve the experience. The same applies to having a lot of RAM and the same mostly applies to really fast processors. And Ethernet upgrades, to be perfectly honest.
  13. Cory5412

    Macintosh LC475 & Apple 7100 video card

    The PowerPC Gen1 PDS video cards are completely incompatible with 68k Macs. Even if the connectors are the same.
  14. All my Macs with soft power (8600, beige g3, 840av, for example) work fine powering on via the IIgs keyboard's reset/power button.
  15. One possibility: Try a higher end SSD from a different brand. I've yet to actually try any in my G5. Regarding SSD backward compatibility, most of the PCs people bother putting SSDs in have 3 gigabit SATA (SATA II), but I'd be highly interested in whether anyone's bothered to put an SSD in something like an OptiPlex GX270 or GX280, which have the original SATA spec. (Another good one might be ThinkPad Z60.) Every SSD I've ever used has successfully scaled back from 6 to 3 gigabit SATA for use in machines from the Core2 era, but I don't have much that's older and has SATA. I hear a lot more about G5s having problems with newer/faster SSDs and I don't know if it's the SSD's "fault" or the G5's "fault" - and I don't hear anything about very old PCs, but that's at least as likely to be because I'm just not in old PC communities as it is to be because old PCs didn't have problems like this. I have a couple of 10.6 machines with their original spinning hard disks from 2006, usually fairly midrange. One's a Mac Pro 1,1 and one's a Mac Mini 2,1. It's Pretty Good by the standards of modern computers with conventional/spinning hard disks installed on them. Mac OS X 10.13+ (and really this has been the case for several years) are really really bad on spinning disks, and Windows 10 is better but still not good on one. Mac OS X 10.6 boots really fast and searches quickly and just generally works really well on relatively ho-hum disks from 2006. Would there be a performance boost? Yes. Is that performance boost important? Depends on what you're doing. Applications and OSes didn't expect always-instant high-IOPS storage the way modern environments do.
×