Jump to content
jessenator

Jessenator's conquests

Recommended Posts

34 minutes ago, LaPorta said:

By the way, are you still in need of Power Computing software?

Yeah! I'd be willing to try out some other images to see if they work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've got them on vTools. Do you have login credentials? That would probably be the easiest way instead of me trying to somehow else dump 1.2 GB on you. I can locate them and tell you which drive, folder, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, LaPorta said:

I've got them on vTools. Do you have login credentials? That would probably be the easiest way instead of me trying to somehow else dump 1.2 GB on you. I can locate them and tell you which drive, folder, etc.

I'll PM you

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Digging for coal:

L64aZqG.jpg

FKQyeeK.jpg

 

Found a diamond:

gewVdER.jpg

a70qelQ.jpg

 

Of course, on my 4400 it only shows 400 MHz:

 

jBAIhVS.jpg

 

So I'm not as bummed about the dingus who packed these INSIDE THE MOTHERBOARDS ESD BAG WITHOUT SECURING IT OR PADDING IT... Hence the broken smd pieces.... To be clear, the whole thing was padded, but the vram module and the sonnet were in their own esd bags, and just moving around inside the motherboard's esd bag...

 

I might try to repair the Starmax board eventually. The longer component (oscillator???) I can see where it goes and I think the smaller smd resistors are for the CPU option (I can see disturbed solder), but I haven't had a chance to look where the caps go, or if they're still good.

 

But all in all, a nice gamble that paid off :)

 

Here's the cpu on the board

SQPoZjE.jpg

Edited by jessenator
clarity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, jessenator said:

Found a diamond:

gewVdER.jpg

a70qelQ.jpg

Congrats, and welcome to the 500MHz club!  If/when you get a 50MHz board you'll be glad you've got this.

 

16 hours ago, jessenator said:

So I'm not as bummed about the dingus who packed these INSIDE THE MOTHERBOARDS ESD BAG WITHOUT SECURING IT OR PADDING IT... Hence the broken smd pieces.... To be clear, the whole thing was padded, but the vram module and the sonnet were in their own esd bags, and just moving around inside the motherboard's esd bag...

Somehow, it's still amazing to me that there are folks on eBay (and similar places) that only, or primarily, sell computers / hardware / etc. and don't understand how to properly pack things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, EvilCapitalist said:

when you get a 50MHz board you'll be glad you've got this. 

Is the 6400 50mhz? There's one locally with a multi sync Apple monitor and accoutrements for $150. I might try to talk them down, especially since it's a moderate drive for me.

 

I guess there's a chance, albeit slim, that I'll find a 5x00 starmax board and it'd fit right in my 4400 case. Thats if Macinfo.de is correct about the Tanzania II board being a chipset upgraded I board.

 

I wonder if it's too involved to bump a I board up to a II... I mean mine is in need of repair anyway.

 

And I definitely agree about packing computer components. Maybe they hire numpties to do the prep for them... but I'm glad they didn't leave those things SOCKETED for shipment at least. I find it really funny that things like the riser card and RAM were stripped but the VRAM and that Sonnet were left in it… too funny!

 

I was also very fortunate with my se/30. It came in a home Depot box with only crumpled brown paper. Granted the paper was heavyweight and no big jostles when it arrived, but man thats pushing it.

Edited by jessenator
clarity and exposition

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 6400 are 40MHz buses. The 6500 family had a 50MHz bus.

 

6400 with a monitor might be nice, I know this isn't universal, but I've loved having a couple Apple monitors around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, I looked again out of curiosity, and it IS a 6500! I thought it was a 6400… I did ask him if it was a 300 (for you actually), but it's a 250. I might try to talk I'm down over driving distance.
https://classifieds.ksl.com/listing/56912176

I'd like any Apple monitor that's bigger than 13" :lol: I mean, I have my Sony LCD which works marvelously with my Rage128 and Mach64 cards. I did try  couple of local ads but I could never reliably communicate with them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, jessenator said:

300 (for you actually)

I appreciate that a lot.

 

The 6500 is great even at 250MHz, and to be honest, my personal take is that if you had gotten a /275 or  /500 it would be a shame to upgrade it, but a 225 or 250 would be a great home to that Sonnet card.

 

The 6500s have an upgraded video chip over the 6400 as well, reducing the strict need to run an ATi card in it, especially below the max resolution of 1280x1024. (But even that kind of depends on what stuff you want to do, it supports 256 colors at 1280x1024.)

 

That 15-inch multiple scan is a pretty nice display, as well, by my recollection, the speakers are Pretty Good and with the 6400/6500 subwoofer, that would make a great MP3 machine.

 

That printer is pretty ho-hum, but it might be worth picking up as it's probably one of the newer Mac serial deskjets that exists.

 

The one bummer about period monitors, especially any that are bigger than that one (and to be honest that one's even fairly big, just in terms of how shapey it is and the speakers hanging off the side), is that they absolutely dominate modern desks meant for laptops and flat-panel iMacs. I'm using an IKEA dining table as a desk and a single 20-inch Multiple Scan would be fine if that desk were only for one machine, but it's got to share the space with my main PC and some laptops, and it can be a tight fit sometimes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At this point I'd much rather have a 6360/6400 board on hand than the couple of extra bare 6500 boards I've picked up over the years. Got those for the 25% bus bump and better graphics. From the TAM gang's woes, the 6500 Gazelle architecture board and a compatible Firewire/USB card is difficult to find and targeted by deep pocket TAM types.

 

So I'd be reticent about looking for a 6500 in light of that. A 6400 with G3/L2, a nice VidCard for one slot coupled with a USB/Firewire Card in the other probably offers better performance overall than 6500.  Peripheral connections over USB1 and a Firewire enclosure for HDD/SD/SSD seems like the best overall target system to me. YMMV.

 

@Cory5412 I know you like running machines in their "natural state," but in this instance a slow 6400 w/G3L2 at any speed makes more sense than a fast 6500 I think. Mass storage over Firewire should be a big improvement over the oddball IDE implementation of the Q630-6500/TAM series, no?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the pricing info!

 

Based on some brief magazine searches the 'Wave wasn't around long, but from all accounts PCC did pretty well. In fact, one of the long term side projects I'm working on is a sort of documentary on PCC and its brief blip on the computer timeline. In my research it's amazing how well they did. In one article Jobs was quoted as saying a renegotiated license agreement was on the table but rejected... Probably to stunt PCC's success. He later went on to say the status quo of the licensing was more harmful than beneficial... Lots of interesting things from that era. And lots of whining from Jobs :lol:

 

I wonder who has the powerpc 750 prototype that PCC made. Now there's a unicorn.

 

Edited by jessenator

Share this post


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

From the TAM gang's woes, the 6500 Gazelle architecture board and a compatible Firewire/USB card is difficult to find and targeted by deep pocket TAM types.

 

Worth noting. For me, I want a 6500/300 specifically for performance comparisons with a beige G3/300, an 8600/300, and just for fun I should probably get a blue-and-white G3/300 in the mix as well, to use as a baseline for thinking about what the performance of each different kind of Mac you could get in 1997 was like, numerically.

 

I'm not super worried about firewire/USB for most of my vintage Macs, because, to be honest, I have vtools on-site, and that's much faster than USB 1.1 is. Also, I'm I am a 7.6.1-liker, and would probably be running that on such a machine, and 7.6.1 can use neither USB nor firewire, but it can use ethernet, file server, the PC compatibility cards (if those work in the 6500) and the Avid Cinema card (if those work in the 6500.)

 

It's no skin off my back to get a 6500 and then run it without any PCI cards, or with only a PCI Ethernet card, to be perfectly honest.

 

57 minutes ago, Trash80toHP_Mini said:

Firewire should be a big improvement over the oddball IDE implementation of the Q630-6500/TAM series, no?

I'm actually not sure that the IDE implementation of the 630-6300 and the 6360/6400/6500 is very odd. It's my understanding that it's reliable, performant relative to the SCSI implementations Apple had at the time, and that it fairly handily works well with big disks. (For most people, this will be up to 120 gigs, but I believe johnklos has a 630 or 6200 with a 500 or 750 gig disk in it.)

 

Perhaps ironically, compare with the weird IDE implementations of the Beige and Blue-and-white G3s 

 

59 minutes ago, Trash80toHP_Mini said:

A 6400 with G3/L2, a nice VidCard for one slot coupled with a USB/Firewire Card in the other probably offers better performance overall than 6500. 

Here's the thing. What you are describing: 6400/G3, Video, USB/FW, a bigger IDE hard disk, and CS2 ethernet is [dramatic pause] a Power Macintosh G3, but worse.

The Beige G3 has all that and a much faster bus, onboard 3d graphics that can accomodate 6 megs of VRAM and thus 1600x1200 at 24-bit color, onboard ethernet you don't have to hunt for, no driver oddities, an extra pci slot, a more flexible case with room for more different options, and can run newer software, plus room for loads more ram. (768 megs, vs. 136 megs in a 6400.)

 

I get that you, and several people, like G3 upgrades, but we shouldn't talk about it in the sense of getting "a better computer than the 6400" because to be perfectly honest, there are loads of better computers than the 6400 to be had all over the place.

 

I think we should enjoy the 6400 for what it is -- because it's not a very good Power Mac G3.

 

With that in mind:

My ideal 6400 configs are the stripped out cacheless 180MHz model people would have bought basically just to run clarisworks on, or to replace some older Mac with, and the 200MHz Video Editing Edition, with a PC Compatibility card added in, each running 7.6.1.

 

Here's the other thing:

All of this highly depends on what software you want to run. The newer you go, the more RAM you need, and the 6400 and 6500 can't hold a lot of that stuff. (136 for 6400 and 128 for 6500, 160 for 4400.) Even the original basic iMac can officially run 384, and unofficially run 512. All Beige Power Mac G3s are known to support 768 megs of RAM, and a PowerMac G3 can run a gig. All "slot loading" iMac G3s can also run a gig of RAM.

 

So, like, if you want a fast vintage Mac for os8/9 and newer 9-era software, there's plenty of faster and better machines around.

 

15 minutes ago, jessenator said:

from all accounts PCC did pretty well.

They did well and they were fairly well liked. Their product stack was weird, and as you can kind of tell from the price list, their pricing structure was.... also kind of weird, but each of the clone vendors had weird stuff like that going on.

 

16 minutes ago, jessenator said:

He later went on to say the status quo of the licensing was more harmful than beneficial...

This is 100% true.

 

Traditionally, it's popular to credit The G3 (the iMac in particular) with Apple's re-discovered success in the late '90s, but a lot of different factors really went into that, and one of them was absolutely ending the clone programs.

 

The clone program arguably extended further than it really should have and because Apple built the boards and supplied the compoments for so many f the different models, often clone suppliers got their machines built and shipped before Apple did, for, reasons I'm not entirely clear on myself. Plus, the clone manufacturers were often quick to adopt slightly faster CPU modules than Apple was using (the 225MHz PowerComputings are a good example of this) while Apple's own machines were still at 200MHz for a couple more months. (Though, 250, 300, and 350MHz versions would follow very shortly.)

 

The other-other-other thing is that some of the cloners *cough* Motorola *cough* subleased their clone agreement like fifteen times. If you can pull a brand name out of your armpit, that company was slamming StarMax motherboards into PC cases in the mid-late '90s. 

 

I suspect if Apple had negotiated a different kind of contract and if their own distribution and product line made more sense, the program really would have had the intended effect of expanding the Mac market. Instead, what happened is that Apple let the cloners eat its 7000/8000/9000 series lunch and its 4000/5000/6000 series lunch.

 

The other thing is, I bet a PowerBook clone (say, one built by IBM) would have been super well liked, because laptops was something Apple was really bad at basically from 1994 to 1998.

Share this post


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

Worth noting. For me, I want a 6500/300 specifically for performance comparisons with a beige G3/300, an 8600/300, and just for fun I should probably get a blue-and-white G3/300 in the mix as well, to use as a baseline for thinking about what the performance of each different kind of Mac you could get in 1997 was like, numerically.

Not fair as comparisons go really, I just took a look at the timeframe over on everymac for confirmation. The 6500/300 was discontinued 3/14/98, three days before the 3/17/98 G3/300 release and that very day the 8600/300 was discontinued.

 

As for the more upgrade friendly 6400/200 (compared to 6500/300 or TAM), it was long gone, discontinued 5/1/97, though the 5400 AIO was available until it was discontinued 11 mos. later on 3/31/98. In general, you're right about the G3, no doubt it's all about beige. But on the subject of InstaTowers (where did that name come from, BTW?) the 6400 would be more fun in general with more upgrade compatibility than a much faster, much later 6500/300 as I see it in terms of collections.

 

2 hours ago, Cory5412 said:

I'm actually not sure that the IDE implementation of the 630-6300 and the 6360/6400/6500 is very odd. It's my understanding that it's reliable, performant relative to the SCSI implementations Apple had at the time, and that it fairly handily works well with big disks

Keeping up with Apple's SCSI implementations of the era would be damning that odd, single device/HDD ONLY support IDE implementation with faint praise. Much better than when the faithful damned it as cheaper/implying slower than SCSI when

Apple finally implemented IDE, but no great shakes.

 

I guess Apple finally got SCSI right in build to order Beige G3s with available Ultra/Wide SCSI on board.  They got a lot right in Beige.

 

2 hours ago, Cory5412 said:

Here's the thing. What you are describing: 6400/G3, Video, USB/FW, a bigger IDE hard disk, and CS2 ethernet is [dramatic pause] a Power Macintosh G3, but worse.

Of course it was worse {even more dramatic pause} there was a three month gap between the 6400 being discontinued and the BG3/233/266 being introduced! But a 6360 refurb, a Crescendo G3/L2 and a Radius' PCI makeover of the Thunder IV GX let me wait things out until Apple finally put an additional PCI slot to the DA during the G4 era before upgrading. In the day skipping a generation by acceleration is something I did twice IRL. [;)]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Incidentally, so as to avoid the toes-being-stepped-on feeling I feel like I might be generating - I want to be clear that I'm not saying people shouldn't use G3 upgrades. I'm saying that I don't like them, myself, in modern times, (and I'm on record as having thought this for at least fifteen years) because it's often cheaper and faster and you get a much more capable overall system to just get a real PowerMac/PowerBook/iMac/iBook G3.

 

I'm also not saying that there's a downside to using a G3-upgraded system, as much as that, there's far fewer upsides to doing so compared to just using a real G3.

1 hour ago, Trash80toHP_Mini said:

Not fair as comparisons go really,

So, I'll cop to getting the "1997" part wrong, mostly. The 6500/300 was introduced in April '97 (it had taken the "first consumer desktop to 300MHz" crown and Apple was super proud about that) and the 9600/300 and /350 ran through March 97 as well, although the 9600 in particular was available at least through early 1999, at seemingly fairly wildly varying prices. The 9600 had actually already been discontinued, but was then re-introduced in February, only to be re-discontinued just one month later. One month it was like $3,500 and the next it would be $1,600. I'm extremely curious about why the 6500 wasn't discontinued along with all the other discontinuations in that moment.

 

I think it's perfectly fair, the 6500 would still have existed, and even without the 275 and 300, there were other speeds. It's just that 300 is a number that four platforms happened to land on and so it would be neat to compare them numerically.

 

Plus, someone who had bought a 6500 at some point in time might still have been looking at 300 or 333MHz PowerMac G3s as upgrades if they wanted to stay on kind of a power user track. Heck, a 6500/300 might have been perfectly justified in buying a Blue/300 when those launched in '99, especially since by then the 300MHz price point had dropped a lot.

 

Plus, we compare all manner of things.

 

And, it's not like I'm using this information to prove that a G3 is better. We know that! We've known that, solidly, for twenty years.

 

1 hour ago, Trash80toHP_Mini said:

But a 6360 refurb, a Crescendo G3/L2 and a Radius' PCI makeover of the Thunder IV GX let me wait things out until Apple finally put an additional PCI slot to the DA during the G4 era before upgrading. In the day skipping a generation by acceleration is something I did twice IRL. [;)]

Sure, but, again, it's not 1999 and we're trying to stretch a machine for another year. Today, acceleration is arguably something we only really need to do out of pure interest, not because it actually makes sense to accelerate an older performa/powermac instead of just getting a beige g3, or even any powermac g4.

 

The other thing is, getting a refurbished 6360 arguably bought you a lot of upgrade money. Many of the upgrades I see people show interest in cost nearly as much as buying an entirely new machine. (Rockets, in particular, but really it's something where you ahve to consider each scenario individually.

 

So, like, that's nice for you in 1999, but here in 2019, I have a Beige G3/300, a Blue G3/450, a TiBook 1000, an iMac/400, an iMac/500, a third slot-loading iMac whose speed I forget, an iBook/366, an iBook/1.33, and a QS'02 G4/800. It's quite frankly a waste of time and money for me to bother with turning a pre-G3 Mac that's interesting on its own into something I already have a half dozen of.

 

1 hour ago, Trash80toHP_Mini said:

I guess Apple finally got SCSI right in build to order Beige G3s with available Ultra/Wide SCSI on board.  They got a lot right in Beige.

The Beige G3 family is amazing. UWSCSI was a BTO option, and it was also available packed in with an insanely high end 300MHz config, I believe list on that particular config was above either 3-grand or 4-grand. The Blue also had a UWSCSI card available, but, again, it was mostly on the higher end models.

 

1 hour ago, Trash80toHP_Mini said:

Keeping up with Apple's SCSI implementations of the era would be damning that odd, single device/HDD ONLY support IDE implementation with faint praise.

"odd", sure, but it wasn't really bad. They're known to support big disks with essentially no caveats. There's no room for two IDE hard disks in any Mac up through the Beige anyway, and Apple famously INCREDIBLY botched the IDE implementation on the blue-and-white Rev A (like, those machines are near mandatory storage upgrade candidates), and there's weird stuff going on with Beiges, especially if you want to use OS X.

 

So, arguably it wasn't until 1999 and the Power Macintosh G4 Yikes/Sawtooth rolled around that Apple finally got IDE totally right.

 

1 hour ago, Trash80toHP_Mini said:

But on the subject of InstaTowers

The same place Outrigger and K2 did. That was Apple's codename for the enclosure. Apple was particularly proud of Instatower and K2, 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I enjoy the spirited banter :)

 

I guess i never really took stock of keeping an old Mac running in the day. In high school, while working in our IT group, rarely would we do upgrades on machines. Most of memories it are of changing out whole labs worth of computers.

 

1999 I want to say it was.

 

Anyhow, there was one holdout. My German teacher desperately wanted to keep her Macintosh TV. Other than that they all got blue G3s and matching CRTs. The mediocre lab got Bondi iMacs. The nice lab kept its molar Macs. Did my first bit of nonlinear editing on one of them.

 

Our yearbook team though, we kept everything. We had two radius full page displays, one on a maxed out iici that ran pagemaker like a champ, the other on a quadra of some model. But we had an 8600 solely for image editing, an 8500 for the advanced photo classes and I think another 8500 for photos. These never got changed out with the swarm of next gen machines. I think the teacher eventually held out and got a G4 yikes come graduation.

 

Much later on, my first employer in my field was still using his beige G3 (this was 2006) and I don't know what he did to it, but it got the job done for him. He was doing everything from heavy Photoshop work to complex InDesign work. . Still a workhorse. I wish I had gotten it from him. He said I could have it once he upgraded, that was probably the longest stretch.

 

My brother in law had ditched his 72/7500 (don't recall which it was now) for a sawtooth, probably when they were launched, And used it till the Intel switch, but might've had an iMac g5. Don't recall.

 

I wish I knew if they ever upgraded anything. I think if anything, the older stuff did get a few things here and there, maybe more than RAM, but y would've been shocked if it'd been a sonnet or daystar card.

 

A school friends dad's design agency or the local recording studio, maybe. I would always gawk at prices in MacMall and wonder if I'd ever afford one. By the time I got my Q610 I eyeballed the Carerra or 601 card. But even though I might've saved up enough, I don't think in the day I would've. My friends were calling me to the PC side, and then when we finally got an iMac DV SE, we had enough to keep me going.

 

I upgraded my mac pro to a octo in 2008 or so, when the 5355 CPUs dropped to $50 and popped in an xfx flashed 5770. Thats about all she wrote. But 2007–2014 was quite a span for a machine. It was a bit of a trick, but at least you could do it on your own.

 

It's fun to kind of take a small bite out of the nostalgia apple (hah) and see where the top of the line of the mid 90s could do and beyond.

 

That's what it's about: fun.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep, all in fun, and no toes stepped on at all, C. It's wonderful that we can pick and choose machines for any reason at all at this point. Your generational 300MHz comparison being a particularly interesting case in point. But having nursed systems along on a budget IRL I have a different perspective.

 

I'm very interested in treating everything as others do an SE/30 or TAM, blowing every possible thing out to the max just to see what might have happened in different scenarios. I'm doing that on a budget as well today. One of the things I'd love to and can't afford to explore is the history of the Mac growing into THE machine for DTP after having been the ONLY machine for that purpose. Taking a workstation modified 128k back to faux original equipment status seems an utter waste in that light. PageMaker and Fontographer (the original Illustration app) on 128k and then 512k were the tools that made the Mac in that market. After Illustrator and Plus were released it was different, not as exciting in technical terms. I got into the Mac scene with the SE and by then, pushing the envelope had become almost boring.

 

Be that as is may, I was weighing the merits of the 6400 architecture that arguably make it better than the 6500/TAM for expansion and ultimately, overall performance. Taking a 6400 past the 6500/TAM in that regard is a pet project of mine as is taking a IIsi past what is possible to do with the SE/30. Rocket/SCSI2 daughtercard is at the heart of that effort. :grin:

 

Different strokes for different collectors and those different approaches are all fascinating to me. That as well is what it's about for me and the reason I jump into so many different members projects.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, jessenator said:

I guess i never really took stock of keeping an old Mac running in the day. In high school, while working in our IT group, rarely would we do upgrades on machines. Most of memories it are of changing out whole labs worth of computers.

Take a look back at the MacWorld (more consumer oriented) and MacUser (far better technically) at vintageapple.org. The acclererator reviews are all about weighing the merits of upgrading a machine in hand vs. biting the bullet and going for Apple's latest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Got the last cap soldered onto the Starmax board. Gutted the 4400 with the hopes of swapping the board, and *ahem* positioned the board in mediocre fashion*. Hooked up the PSU and a keyboard, gave it a tap on the soft power and...

H0cOq2J.jpg

 

:) 

 

The board, even though the connectors are flush, doesn't quite fit into the case, onto the support pegs, which is meh. Guess I'm left with the decision to someday find a new case, or get out the dremel and go to town! I'm kind of inclined to dremel out the I/O panel further. The 4400 is kind of an eyesore, so I don't think modification would be too heretical.



*Here's the insulated (bubble wrap and a box) solution just to power it up anyway. without completely disassembling the 4400—I wanted to hear everything hooked up: speakers, fan, etc.
V97Pqj6.jpg

 

Edited by jessenator

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll chalk up another soldering victory (took me far too long, but still).
Mi9Cvdx.jpg
Analog board and PSU recapped :) 

To save time, I just used the yoke and tube from the Classic (the connectors weren't burnt up). Close save after I blindly started peeling off hot glue:
nVyBYoD.jpg
But I found a 100nf cap on the parts, Classic analog board.

ok now it's time for bed...

Edited by jessenator

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

×