Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by CC_333

  1. Very neat indeed! If 2020, an otherwise miserable year, brought us anything good, it's a plethora of newly reverse-engineered clones of these otherwise hard to find and very desirable upgrades! c
  2. 68080? Does such a chip even exist??!! I thought Motorola cut it off at '060? c
  3. About the only thing I can think of that's worse is a nuclear winter 2021 can only be better, most likely not at first, but eventually. c
  4. This is a neat project! I wonder if something similar could be designed for more modern CPUs, such as the Core2 Duo, Athlon, etc., as I have many of those floating around loosely (the C2Ds don't have pins, so bending isn't an issue, but they can still be damaged via ESDs and such). c
  5. I don't think I've seen that particular kind of distortion on a Compact before! c
  6. I have a Ti-89! And - surprise - I used it for calculus 1/2/3 (those three classes were among the hardest I'd ever taken!) Programming it is a big chore, too. The fact that it has a 68000 is pretty neat, though. I had forgotten about that! c
  7. Plus, with these LCDs no longer being made, finding unaffected replacements is going to be come increasingly difficult and expensive, to the point where replacing the polarizer is worth the inconvenience. c
  8. @joshc The eMac and iMac G5, I believe, were affected by the industry-wide capacitor plague of 2001-2008 (Dell is well known as being among the hardest hit, especially from 2004-2007, but Apple got hit too). Otherwise, it seems that most Macs from the beige G3 onward are still in fairly good shape cap wise, though models built before 2000 (basically all G3s and early G4s) should be monitored somewhat closely, because any caps in those are likely reaching the end of their normal lifespans soon. c
  9. Ah, I didn't even consider AMD! Yes, AMD was definitely also ahead of Intel. However, per the linked benchmark, the G5 was definitely on top, with AMD slightly ahead in a couple areas; and only with the base G5 at that (the Pentium 4, of course, was consistently among the slowest despite having one of the highest clock speeds; only the 3.06 GHz dual Xeon held its own, slightly beating the 2.5GHz MP G5 on the Cinebench 2003 benchmark). That was only in 2004, though. c
  10. @360alaska Agreed. It's easy to criticize the G5 as a hot running, inefficient, power hungry beast of a CPU with relatively poor performance-per-watt when comparing it to anything remotely modern, but it's actually fairly competitive compared to most contemporary Intel CPUs (particularly earlier Netburst CPUs), which I think people tend to forget nowadays. This was especially true in 2003 and early 2004, when the G5 was new. However, they did age pretty badly, and by mid 2005 or so, Intel surpassed the G5 by quite a bit in terms of speed and efficiency. By 2006, the writing was
  11. Well, the flyback itself may be (at least until some enterprising rich person decides to either clone it), but in the meantime, you should be able to part out the PSU/AB of an otherwise working iMac whose plastics are shattered (which, sadly, are relatively common)? It probably wouldn't last like a new part would, but it should last long enough for your friend to enjoy it. c
  12. Well, maybe so, but these reprints can be thought of as a sort of budget option for those who are unable/unwilling to spend for originals, so they are in no way invalid. c
  13. CC_333


    I agree with @Jinnai. It was perhaps a bit too blunt and personal to be appropriate for the open forum, but it was nevertheless an innocent, perfectly legitimate question, although if it were I who was asking, I probably would've done so privately to altogether avoid the risk of what happened here today. Hopefully all who were involved learned something and can better handle this kind of situation in the future.... c
  14. If I had the money to spare, I'd totally get a few of these! Solid state is good, but on a vintage computer, I want to hear those hard drives sounds! c
  15. Hmm, I'm sorry it didn't work. I don't think it's the end of the road, but it does seem that perhaps, barring any new information, it's more trouble than it's worth. Are you able/willing to run 7 on one of your compacts? It's slower, but it's also potentially much more useful, as you can then use things like Quicktime (provided your version of choice supports 68000-based Macs). I'll look into it some more and see what I can come up with. c
  16. OK! I have spent some time browsing Macintosh Garden,?and I think I may have figured out something you could try! First, download this and use it to convert a WAV file to a System 7 Sound file: https://macintoshgarden.org/apps/balthazar And then download this and use it to play the resulting snd file on System 6: https://macintoshgarden.org/apps/7th-symphony It's a bit kludgy, but I think it might work. I will try it myself in mini vMac when I get access to my computer later this evening. c
  17. @Garrett Yes, you'd take your audio file of choice, mix it down to mono, and encode it to 22kHz AIFF. Ideally, you'd use an older DAW to do it (Cool Edit Pro would work, for example), but anything that can encode to AIFF should work well enough. What System 6-compatible software can play it once on the Mac? I'm not sure. Maybe try browsing Macintosh Garden? EDIT: just did a little checking, and it looks like Quicktime 1.0 may run on System 6. Not sure if it'll rum on a 68000, though. c
  18. No, they're not, but MP3s won't play very well, if at all, so you'd have to convert to WAV (or, more specifically, AIFF, as that's the format used on early Macintoshes; it's more or less equivalent to standard WAV files (as seen primarily on contemporary PCs), but there are a few minor differences because Apple wanted to be different (Macs and PCs had since standardized on PC-style WAV sometime in the late 90s (and then of course MP3s, once the average Mac or PC became fast enough to decode them efficiently), so this difference has become moot)). So, basically, when you do encode
  19. @cheesestraws I did read your write up, and it is indeed very nice! Depending on my budget, I may be interested in getting one at some point! I have been interested in getting a SCSI2SD for some time now, but due to their apparently recalcitrant nature and my chronically underfunded budget, I've held back because I still have enough original hard drives in working order that I'm not super rushed to get one. c
  20. Just got caught up with this thread, and I must say it's an exciting development! With regard to the discussion between @ymk and @Cory5412 about the simplicity of MacSD vs. SCSI2SD w/re: implementing >4 GB partition support and such, my take on it is that basically, there's no reason why that's a bad thing for simplicity. Perhaps it complicates configuration a bit for those who choose to use it, but it's implemented as a more advanced feature anyway, intended for users with more advanced needs, and to the best of my understanding, it doesn't interfere with MacSD's core feature
  21. Wow, I'd like to help out too, but I think it would take me, oh, ~40-50 hours to get there :LOL: c
  22. That Apple Vision 850AV is a monitor I wouldn't mind having someday, since I could use it on PCs as well as Macs, making it much more versatile than the earlier fixed-sync Apple CRTs, which tend to not support PCs without extraordinary measures. c
  23. I thought it was the original II that was rarely seen in stock, un-upgraded form? Nevertheless, we're at the point that they're all getting quite rare. c
  24. I'm going to follow this too. It's quite interesting! c
  • Create New...