Jump to content
mraroid

PCI SATA card for Blue & White?

Recommended Posts

Hello....
 
I was reading about a older card from Sonnet called a Sonnet's Tempo Serial ATA PCI adapter card:
 
 
I went looking for a used one, but could not find one.
 
Are other companies making PCI SATA cards that I could use in my Blue & White?  I did a search on Amazon and ebay and did not find anything that I thought would work. 
Many are available, but all I could find were PCI SATA cards for PCs.
 
Thanks
 
mraroid
 

SPCIsata.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The card pictured, and as far as I know every single SATA card compatible with older Macs is based on the SIL3112 chip. This is the only SATA card for Macs that need to run Mac OS 9.

 

In another thread, you've been given a link to a MacRumors thread about flashing them. We probably have such a thread here, and some people such as @defor have trading post threads selling them.

 

I believe you might need to use a PC with a PCI or PCI-X slot to flash them, but I don't know the details.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Cory5412 said:

In another thread, you've been given a link to a MacRumors thread about flashing them. We probably have such a thread here, and some people such as @defor have trading post threads selling them.

I  must have missed that.  I will look again for that info.  I am unsure what "flashing" is, but will look into it.

14 hours ago, Cory5412 said:

 

I believe you might need to use a PC with a PCI or PCI-X slot to flash them, but I don't know the details.

So, are you saying that cards like the Sonnet I posted the picture of (PCI cards made for older Macs) are not made any more, so one needs to flash a PC card? 

 

Thank you for your help.

 

mrroid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cory....

 

While reading up on the B&W, I come across Mac ATA controller PCI cards.  It appears that the PCI ATA cards can pass data faster the the ATA bus installed in the B&W.  But after a little searching around, I did not find any.  Is this the same story as the Sonnet PCI SATA cards?
 
mraroid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Absolutely, substitution of higher level ATA rev cards and SATA cards would be like installing NuBus cards to do the same thing, getting around the very slow SCSI implementation bottleneck of Macs in that era. Installing a Fast/Narrow SCSI card would be roughly analogous to an ATA card as a Fast/Wide SCSI II card like the JackHammer would be to SATA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Trash80toHP_Mini said:

Absolutely,

Got it.  Thank you Trash.  Now all I need to do is find some old cards....

 

mraroid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, mraroid said:

are not made any more, so one needs to flash a PC card

Unfortunately, to my knowledge, no cards based on the SIL3112 chipset are made any more.

 

I would try your SSD on the G3's onboard ATA bus if you have an adapter for it to see if it seems fine before bothering with an ATA card, but that's just me. After having dealt with it a bit in my QS today, I'm extremely disillusioned with the idea of using the ATA buses in my QS'02 for anything once I start getting SATA cards in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Finding a SATA card compatible all the way back to the B&W might be problematic, dunno. Finding an ATA card that's compatible back to 9500 era machines for the B&W isn't a bad idea and not all that tall an order.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Trash80toHP_Mini said:

Finding a SATA card compatible all the way back to the B&W might be problematic, dunno

The SIL3112-based cards are compatible with every Mac that has PCI slots. I know several people running them in PCI clones. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Cory5412 said:

The SIL3112-based cards are compatible with every Mac that has PCI slots. I know several people running them in PCI clones. 

Thanks for that info, I must have missed it in the discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/2/2019 at 5:04 PM, Cory5412 said:

In another thread, you've been given a link to a MacRumors thread about flashing them. We probably have such a thread here, and some people such as @defor have trading post threads selling them.

 

 

I found this forum on the web and joined.  I searched and search, but I could not find a thread that talked about flashing.  If you see it again, could you post a link? 

Thanks for the help.

 

mraroid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's the reference I was using: 

I don't personally go to MR very often.

 

There's also some information on this thread:

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Cory5412 said:

Unfortunately, to my knowledge, no cards based on the SIL3112 chipset are made any more.

Am I understanding correctly that this chipset would allow one to boot to OS9 as well as OSX as the Sonnet card can? 

14 hours ago, Cory5412 said:

 

I would try your SSD on the G3's onboard ATA bus if you have an adapter for it to see if it seems fine before bothering with an ATA card, but that's just me. After having dealt with it a bit in my QS today, I'm extremely disillusioned with the idea of using the ATA buses in my QS'02 for anything once I start getting SATA cards in.

I used the original 5GB mechanical hard drive for a day or two after I cleaned up the B&W.  I had enough parts laying around the house to roll in a solid state drive.  Almost all of my posts I have made have been while the SS drive was installed.  It is shockingly slow.  So I went looking for a PCI SATA card (no luck!).  Then, while reading about the B&W, I read about PCI IDE controller cards for the Mac and how they were much faster.  If I can not learn how to boot OS9 and a OSX on the same drive, I have a back up plan.  I will run one SS drive with OS9, and the other SS drive off the a PCI IDE card as well.  I can buy cards that do this stuff for windows machines going as far back as XP and probably further.  I did not know this was not the case for older Mac computers until I started looking for cards.  I am trying to learn about flashing at the moment, but coming up short.  Maybe when I move from a 400Mhz G3 to a 500Mhz G4 things will move a little faster and I will give up.  I am waiting on option clips for the motherboard before I can roll the Yikes! 500Mhz board into the B&W.

 

You have been of great help.  Thank you so much.

 

mraroid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, mraroid said:

Am I understanding correctly that this chipset would allow one to boot to OS9 as well as OSX as the Sonnet card can? 

Yes. The Sonnet card is an SIL3112 card.

 

32 minutes ago, mraroid said:

It is shockingly slow

At what? SSDs don't improve compute speed, they reduce seek time whichusually means files load faster and sometimes means applications launch faster, but Classic Mac OS has horrifyingly bad i/o code and likely only benefits a certain amount.

 

If you are utterly dead set on getting a SATA card, I'm interested in your perception as to whether or not it helps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Cory5412 said:

Here's the reference I was using: 

I don't personally go to MR very often.

 

 

 

 

Thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Cory5412 said:

SSDs don't improve compute speed, they reduce seek time whichusually means files load faster and sometimes means applications launch faster, but Classic Mac OS has horrifyingly bad i/o code and likely only benefits a certain amount. 

For things like playing around in Classic versions of Photoshop with swap disk activity or for database work I'd think it should help tremendously in workflow, no? It's all in the applications.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Cory5412 said:

Yes. The Sonnet card is an SIL3112 card.

Got it.  Thank you.

8 minutes ago, Cory5412 said:

 

At what? SSDs don't improve compute speed, they reduce seek time whichusually means files load faster and sometimes means applications launch faster, but Classic Mac OS has horrifyingly bad i/o code and likely only benefits a certain amount.

Moving around, opening and closing apps in windows seemed snuggest to me with OS9.  If I moved to a PCI IDE controller card,  it will not improve the speed of OS9? The same for OSX.  Would moving OSX to a IDE controller card make OSX more snappy?  It looks like cards are no longer available to do this.  So I am probably stuck with the built in IDE bus.  Took a quick look at the links you posted on flashing (Thanks!).  It looks like the card they were using is also a old card which I can not find on Amazon on ebay.  :-(

 

 

8 minutes ago, Cory5412 said:

 

If you are utterly dead set on getting a SATA card, I'm interested in your perception as to whether or not it helps.

I will post my benchmarks as soon as my stuff arrives.  But with the lack of any PCI card support, I suspect the B&W will come out stock but for SS drives behind the built in IDE bus.

 

mraroid

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Trash80toHP_Mini said:

it should help tremendously in workflow, no?

Absolutely, but that's not compute speed, that's disk read/write speed and random seeks are critical for that.

 

EDIT: I think I've said this here, I know I've been saying it a lot on either twitter or IRC, this specific issue is what made my PowerBook G4 feel so insufficient so quick. I mean, the G4 was a bad CPU and the PowerBook G4 was a bad laptop, but it would have been slightly less bad if Apple had adopted 5400RPM mobile disks when they became available.

 

10 minutes ago, mraroid said:

If I moved to a PCI IDE controller card,  it will not improve the speed of OS9

Just casually, I use 9.1 on an 8600/300 with a SCSI2SD v6, a G3/300 (Beige) with the stock hard disk, a TiBook/1000 with a newer hard disk, a QS'02/800 with its stock hard disk, and an iMac G3/400 with its stock hard disk.

 

Generally, when the disk is already spun up, everything happens very quickly and I would be surprised if an appreciable speedup was possible.

 

There is probably some improvement possible, notably the 8600/300 gets started on requests very quickly.

 

10 minutes ago, mraroid said:

Would moving OSX to a IDE controller card make OSX more snappy?

IME, back in the day with (again) my blue 450 on a yikes board, OS X 10.3 was "fine" - probably faster and its GUI more responsive overall than OS 9, but that's just because OS X is objectively a better OS that works better on all hardware.

 

OS X, I would expect to take better advantage of faster disk interfaces. (Also more RAM).

 

However, before looking at IDE, I"d go back on ebay and search "sil3112" once more because I did and found two different cards. Both should be flashable to work in Macs. They ship from Israel, so it's worth looking a little further afield, but it's not strictly speaking entirely impossible to find that card if you want it.

 

Unfortunately, I don't know off hand of any SATA Cards that work for data disks but not for boot disks, that would be nice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Acard also made PATA and SATA PCI cards which worked in OS9 and OSX.    AEC-6280M, AEC-6880M, AEC-6290M, AEC-6890M.

 

However, some of their "SATA" cards appear to be the same as their PATA cards, but with a PATA-SATA bridge chip onboard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Cory5412 said:

However, before looking at IDE, I"d go back on ebay and search "sil3112" once more because I did and found two different cards. Both should be flashable to work in Macs. They ship from Israel, so it's worth looking a little further afield, but it's not strictly speaking entirely impossible to find that card if you want it.

OK.  I missed the cards from Israel.  Because they have the sil3112 chip, is it theoretically possible to flash them so that one could boot to OS 0 as well as OSX?

42 minutes ago, Cory5412 said:

 

mraroid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Cory5412 said:

Absolutely, but that's not compute speed, that's disk read/write speed and random seeks are critical for that.

That was precisely my point, there are tradeoffs in everything about computing. Disk intensive applications can make a solid state upgrade make a computer seem to fly as in some operations with big files in Photoshop, but when it comes to applying filters you're still CPU bound.  You won't see a lot of overall improvement in anything but snappier load times for mundane tasks.

 

It's all in the applications. You pick the software you need to run, that narrows your platform choices and then you choose the appropriate model to run those core applications most efficiently. Most folks have always started with a platform and model choice second strategy which works well enough for running generic crap like Office, but that strategy can fall flat on its face when you're talking about serious applications for doing specific types of work..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

<same thing I've said in several threads over the last few months>

 

We probably, as a community, need to stop presuming that everyone who joins the site is doing the same thing we are.

 

We can gather from the context of mraroid's other threads that the primary need he has for this machine is as a bridge machine - ironically, to do something his vintage Mac already can, just, a little faster. I believe that much is directly stated in this thread, but the original context is here:

 

I would be extremely surprised if, legitimately, there were more people using vintage Macs for "pro" work than there are for playing around in clarisworks or using them as, essentially, vintage mac gaming boxes.

 

You're right, we should be checking, but once we find out what's actually needed, "just whatever" will probably prove itself to be fine in most cases. I pulled out an iMac G3/400 the other day and put some of my normal office, graphics, web authoring and server admin tools on it and it's just as fine at everything I need to do as my 1GHz PowerBook is.

 

And, in terms of considering the application, IOPS-over-speed is probably only relevant to "lots of single small-ish files" types of workflows. Namely, photo sorting. If you open an image in photoshop and go to town on it, that's not going to be super disk heavy task anyway, unless you don't have enough RAM. 

 

Another consideration here, is, like, different pro tasks are going to benefit from different storage configurations. If I was kitting out a blue-and-white for Final Cut Pro 3 again, I'd probably put a big spinning SATA disk in it, for capture and editing, and use a disk defragmenting program on it, and then augment it with a smaller boot disk, leave the original boot disk in (if it's working fine) or use (optionally) use an SSD for boot. This is because DV capture and playback in Final Cut and other contemporary programs is largely not at all random, not is any modern-ish hard disk going to struggle to provide the needed data rates, and so I'd take the convenience of 500gb+ of space over the cost of an SSD, which, again, won't help that particular workflow.

 

For day-to-day stuff, on vintage Macs, SSDs make it nicer, for sure, I won't ever dispute that - but, I dispute the idea that they're "needed" on machines that can run regular disks you can still buy, or where the supply of, say, reasonably sized IDE disks that should work fine, isn't nearly as dried up as it is for some of the older SCSI Macs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to separate this specific point out: with Photoshop, the specific things you're doing and particular parts of an overall image management workflow rely on random disk i/o - slinging pixels in a single specific file will likely demand more of your system's memory than of its disk. 768+ megs of RAM for most high end Macs from 1995 and  newer is something we can pretty easily get our hands on today, and if you *are* doing that kind of thing, specifically, I'd say that's your first upgrade.

 

Photo management is harder on disks than photo editing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One more thought: Photoshop, Final Cut, and a lot of these "late OS 9 era programs" really do benefit from.... just being run on OS X instead.

 

OS X is a much better OS and by and large, even if you give up, IDK, a couple percentage of render time or (a lot) of available megs of RAM for crunching an image in photoshop (but it's ok because OS X can run and use 2GB of RAM in the G4s that support it) you gain multiprocessing, better i/o code, better graphics code, real graphics acceleration support, better graphics accelerators, better networking code, and so on.

 

But at that point, and this is largely why I don't often engage in the actual act of using vintage Macs with Mac OS X on them, your best machine is one you can go buy on apple.com today, because, I guarantee you that $999 2015 MacBook Air is a better pixel pusher than even a quad g5.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×