Jump to content

Cory5412

Administrators
  • Content Count

    9590
  • Joined

  • Last visited

4 Followers

About Cory5412

  • Rank
    Daring Pioneer of the Future

Contact Methods

  • 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. By the time of the 6200/6300, I believe it was the Multiple Scan 14 and 15 that were being shipped with the Performas. Though, globally, a couple different manufacturers built the MS15, there are different enclosures with different ID numbers that will tell you who manufactured them. (UL listing or FCC or other regulatory body numbers.) The performa monitors, and the Multiple Scan 14/15, get a lot more derision than I'd argue they deserve. "Less than stellar" is usually, honestly, pretty good. (This shouldn't be surprising, I argue this about basically everything.) It's not like t
  2. You can thank @jessenator for that one, I think it might come from on the IRC channel where I often use abbreviated names for all of Apple's keyboards and monitors (AK, AEK, AKII, ADK, AAK, MCD14-16, MS14/15/17/20, CS/AV17/20, etc etc).
  3. w/re 14MCD (or MCD14) vs ACHRRGBM @Crutch - I think they're basically the same viewable size, I don't have both at the moment, they're both great displays so I don't know if I think it's worth seeking out one over the other, specifically, as much as, kind of same as I say about a lot of other vintage mac stuff where, just get the first one you can find, kind of thing. To be honest, lower end Apple monitors aren't usually bad, Apple tended to sell midrange stuff as its own low end, I think there's a couple performa displays that were arguably below average but they're still "fine" a
  4. Not the OP, but, I've had a few of these over the years and they are great. These and their sibling monitor the 14-inch Macintosh Color Display have bright clear 14-inch trinitron displays that display at 640x480, which means that they're the resolution most '90s Mac games expect, and system 7 generally works fine. I would say, if you are primarily gaming or enjoying Multimedia(TM) on a 68k or beige PPC Mac, then these monitors will work great. If you are using a newer PowerPC system (incl. mid-beige era, anything with PCI slots) and you are doing content creation in any way, or ar
  5. yay! Also, I looked at a picture of the Apple Adjustable Keyboard online and I had forgotten entirely about the volume buttons. That's either a mute key or an activation for something like PlainTalk, which was Apple's speech recognition and command software in the mid '90s. I don't have the manual on hand, I'll see if I can find a copy.
  6. To my recollection, these shouldn't need the install software. The button at the top with a triangle on it (if that's what you mean by Record) is the power key, it should turn the machine on and when it's running, it will offer to shut down the machine. Just to make sure, which all keys aren't working? Is it mostly the F-keys that don't do anything, or is it the whole numpad? The F-keys, which on these are smaller circular buttons, if I remember correctly, don't do much by default on the other Apple keyboards either. At least in 9, you could tie them to ali
  7. Ah. That kind of stuff is probably possible, one of the Dell 43-inch displays that exists accepts four unique 1920x1080 inputs and you can use it for four unique feeds (instead of as a single big display), I think some of the ultrawides might be able to do this as well, but otherwise that kind of stuff is restricted to very very high end stuff. If you wanted to insist on pixel perfection it would be cheaper and easier to use 1920x1080 or 1920x1200 displays (or smaller) with DVI and VGA inputs and just have your vintage computers be a separate setup or a separate, perhaps dedicated,
  8. A Mac with a VGA or DVI output should do just about the max of what that Mac will do on a big LCD display, timings and cablings considering. In general, you can't run dual-link DVI graphics cards on Mac OS 9, so you'll be scaling something like 1920x1080 or 1920x1200 (depending on what the monitor offers) up regardless. If you're interested in avoiding non-integer scaling, you might be able to run a 2560x1440 display at 1280x720, or a 2560x1600 display at 1280x800. My Dell U2711, for example, will display single-link digital video up to 1920x1080, for example. I haven't
  9. It just occurred to me: when you say download the files, are you looking at writing installation floppies? If so, yeah, the right kind of floppy image files should be writeable with dd or rawrite on windows 10 or a mac. DC42 files should work, I don't remember if DC6 ones will, plain .img files oriented toward use on an emulator will probably work.
  10. 8.5+ will run fairly poorly unless you have more than 32 megs of RAM, so 7.6.1 or 8.1 is probably going to be the sweet spot for you. On slow PPC machines, 8.5 and 9.1 are noticeably slower than 7.6.1 and 8.1, on a 6100/66 (I know, different platform) 9.1 turns in consistently lower MacBench 4 numbers than 7.6.1, for example. (I'd have to go sign into vtools to check what they are, I don't remember how big the delta was.) In terms of floppy disks, yes, if you use a version of Mac OS X old enough to read/write HFS, or you use FAT formatting, you should be able to transfer informatio
  11. 7.6.1 or 8.1 is probably the sweet spot for this machine. It's essentially a slightly faster mobile 6200/6300, but they lopped off the L2 cache, so whatever usability a 6300 had over a 6200 in 8.5 or 9 is going to be removed. That said, as always, I'd say to get a bunch of different versions and put your apps on them and see what you like. The features and connectivity of 8.6 or 9.1 might be worthwhile as a trade-off to the speed, especially if your'e primarily running really old software. (Like, Office 2001 would run poorly on this machine, I bet.)
  12. Do you have any other machines? I've had lots of good luck using Mac OS X 10.4 (server, in my case, but the client will work too) to talk to 7.5.x+ (w/ OpenTransport and AppleShare updates as per system7today) (it should work out of the box on system 8 or newer) all the way out to MacOS 10.11. It has an AFP server as well as an FTP server, so you could use either and it should work fine. Mac OS X 10.4 should be able to be run in virtualization, or you can run it on a late PPC Mac or an early Intel one. I'm using an early CoreDuo Mac mini.
  13. Unfortunately, 10.4+ don't actually speak AppleTalk out of their file servers. AppleTalk-the-network-stack remained in 10.4 for discoverability and for printer sharing only. 10.2 or 10.3 will be suitable for file sharing. Unless, you also have a MacIP Gateway or similar and the Classic II can speak IP. I agree very much that networking is probably the easiest strategy here. Get an Ethertalk to Localtalk adapter and an OS9-10.3 system, download the stuff onto there, heck, use the faster system to decompress stuff, and then access it over the network. You can
  14. My apologies for the delay posting this - the site was slow and/or unavailable for a few hours earlier this morning. The upstream ISP to our hosting location had an error causing a severe network bottleneck.
×
×
  • Create New...