Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About Cory5412

  • Rank
    Daring Pioneer of the Future

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Location
    Arizona, USA

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. There's no real reason it shouldn't. Most clones do run 8+ and 9+ -- just, since Apple ended the clone license and most of the cloners closed up shop/refocused there wasn't much of a support of testing ecosystem for it and Apple elected not to but most clones are one of these flavors: 8100 in a different case 7200 in a different case 9500 in a different case 4400 or 6400 in a different case So as a general rule anything that works well on one of those base platforms/systems will also work fine on the clone. This is really fun so far, thanks
  2. There were two 600MHz models if I'm remembering correctly: The one with the Rage128 and the one with a Radeon, the Rage model should work fine. If the OS9Lives CD doesn't work or isn't good, these will run 9 directly, the 9.2.2 CD from the 2003 eMac will work fine, for example. That's my go-to whenever I can, just because it's got everything needed for every system that can boot OS 9 natively maybe save the MDD'03 and it's been stable and performant on everything I've used it on.
  3. At the end of the day, this (and networking) are jointly the single canonical correct answer to this question, at least from the reliability and performance standpoint. Every other potential answer/technology is as old as these Macs are. There's better and worse technologies within that bunch -- e.g. Bernoulli is tough to deal with (and unreliable at this point), Zip is unreliable, Jaz is unreliable, Syquest is unreliable, MO is reliable but also all the mechanisms are 25-30 years old now, CDROM/CDRW is reliable but all the mechanisms are 25-30 years old, so-on and so-forth.
  4. I realize this is both unhelpful and unpopular; Embrace it! The youngest extant 68k Macs are 25 years old. I would be thoroughly surprised to find out that literally anyone here is the original owner of any of their machines. I strongly suspect that most of us aren't even the second owner of most of our machine. Part of the allure of these machines is arguably that fact -- that they had different lives before. That there was different phases to their lives before! On something like a monitor it can have been used on a II series or an early Quadra from new an
  5. To add/sidenote: there are video output cards for these but they're not really active. And: they're arguably "for" the 580+ all-in-ones for school environments -- you'd add the video output card to mirror a 5200's display to a projector or a television for an education/presentation scenario, they also got used in 6400/6500 "VEE"/"Creative Studio" editions for printing video back to tape but all you were doing was full-screening the video, hitting record on a VCR and then hitting play on the video.
  6. As the wiki says, these are video input/capture cards exclusively. They're great fun, and one of the neater (if not necessarily super practical) functions of these Macs. That they do this trick and have audio input as well is a point in their favor compared to some of the other contemporary A/V Macs but ultimately it ends up being a party trick unless you have lots of patience of specialized hardware of software (e.g. serial controlled video deck that can FF/RW to re-try on missed frames.) Future versions of these cards could be paired with compression hardware (such as the Avid ca
  7. Some Macs (G4 era things in particular) have problems where the PRAM/SMC will just kind of run away if you hit certain buttons on the motherboard the wrong number of times. The service manual for machines of the era are quick to point out, like, hit the reset button but don't hit it the wrong number of times or you'll drain the battery! So, anyway, I wonder if something like that is happening with your 5400? I get the impression Compgeke's done this a couple different times and mostly had success. I'll be honest, my strategy at this point is to only put PRAM batteries i
  8. That's definitely a way to do it. To be honest, that recommendation doesn't cross my mind because I have enough Macs that I have a modern mac for getting files and putting them on the 10.4 server and then all my other macs connect to that or the asip6 box to get things. I would probably get more into booting more than one OS at a time if I only had room for one system. Though, even then I'd probably go just for 7.6.1 for speed and 9.1 for newer utilities and not bother with anything else, but that's mostly my own preferences and needs.
  9. Mirroring what everyone else said, this is a super fun machine. Those upgrades make me think that it got cascaded into workstation use after its life as a server was done, whether that's something someone did in the late '90s or early 2000s will of course be tough to tell, but still, very fun. The DAT drive is really fun but I don't know if it's particularly practical these days, you can just back files up onto a netatalk or apple file server volume using the networking. It's probably worth leaving it in even if you disconnect it from the SCSI bus just for the looks though. (Unles
  10. Yeah, I mean, based on their post, they had access to this information in the mid '90s and I'm guessing they don't still have the card to re-do this testing. So, in 2004 they would've been ~8-10 years out from when they were working on that. I am inclined to believe the general conclusion they made which was that the '060 upgrade wasn't a "compelling product". Whether that was because of performance or some other factor like software compatibility was poor or the price on the chips was too high or because they figured a whole new computer would cost less than the combined upgrades
  11. Here's an interesting note from someone who says they worked at DayStar and were involved in testing presumptive '060 upgrades vs. PPC upgrades: https://www.applefritter.com/comment/840#comment-840 In their testing the '060 was no faster than the '040, clock for clock. The text of the post Submitted by ikrantzler on March 5, 2004 - 2:38am.
  12. My apologies, that was some lazy phrasing on my part: I didn't mean to imply porting SheepShaver to the Mac ROM but document what situations it handles and how it handles them (I suppose you could do this by using '040 and '060 reference docs as well) and how it handles those situations and patching the ROM thusly. I agree, it would be really neat to do and fun to see, even if at this point (or even in 1996 or 2002) the practical use for it is arguably limited -- IME things that need FPU access are trying to frob a 68881 or 68882 directly and even the '040 doesn't really satisfy th
  13. So technically all we're waiting for is someone to examine ShapeShifter's handling of the '060 and re-implement it in something like a ROMinator for an '040 Mac. That's great news and it's like we're halfway there already! /s More seriously, I suppose the question is -- does anybody have those skills? Does anybody with those skills want to do it? Do we get anything out of it other than a "oh neat"? If @keropi6k6 was looking for this, specifically, as a project, we found it. If you were looking more for a performance boost, well: The Mac (compared with t
  14. Not that I know of. ADC and dual-link DVI turned out to be mutually exclusive. The only cards that support dual link are post-ADC and the only monitors that need it are also post-ADC.
  15. And we're back! Thank you for your patience on this! Things took a little longer than we thought as we ended up needing to migrate storage to a new machine.
  • Create New...