Jump to content

Cory5412

Administrators
  • Content Count

    9610
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Cory5412

  1. Some more notes from a couple people on this topic and what works with system 7 here: Which printer should I get? - Peripherals - 68kMLA Forums To the best of my knowledge, nothing brand new still supports AppleTalk, you're looking at printers roughly a decade old to get AppleTalk, and it was about a decade out of use then. If your workplace is buying this printer for you, they will probably not want to buy a 10-15 year old printer, but if they have an HP LaserJet or other similar market midrange/workgroup-aimed network laser from the early-mid 2000s, there's a mod
  2. Hello everybody, My apologies for the late notice, the site will be unavailable tomorrow morning, probably for a couple hours, the physical hosts the site is running on will be moved. Other than the physical location, this isn't a configuration change so the performance of the site should be roughly equivalent before and after. As always, additional updates at 68kMLA (@68kMLA) / Twitter Best, Cory W.
  3. Is there literally anyone who didn't? I can't imagine global coverage was these was any different than MacWorld's was here in the US and MacWorld was extremely explicit about what you were getting every single time Apple did anything like this. Despite it, they liked the CII, IIvx/IIvi/P600, 630, and so on, because even though they were limited compared to higher end pro oriented systems, they represented reasonably good value for money. They included benchmarks each time and so if you were doing any research at all on your new computer, you were doing what you did with your eyes wide open.
  4. Just idly, the CII was not positioned as a SE/30 successor and MacWorld did not take it that way: PB1x0/Quadra/CII announcement MacWorld (USA) December 1991.
  5. W/re Jaz: There were (although, last I looked they are a bit pricy these days) SCSI/USB adapters for Jaz, a PCI card would also solve that problem. From a practical standpoint, I'd say if you get MO working, just use MO as your transitionary media, but SCSI for that might even be beneficial if you don't end up with a 640M drive for your G4 and the 1.3GB one doesn't end up working w/ 230 media. (I remembered I know someone who might remember this faster than I can find it, which I'd need to remember to do, I'll see what they say.)
  6. Yeah, I see this from time to time. In every scenario I've ever seen, the card was a replaceable one. This is a solvable problem. Other ethernet cards do fit in the IIsi. If a planned SE/30 reproduction ethernet card were built, I believe the IIsi would also benefit from that. Though, NuBus seems like it would be the lower hanging and more beneficial fruit all around. Do we have manufacture/sell dates on the ethernet hardware "known" not to work with modern ethernet hardware? (Sidenote: I do plan on getting managed switching at some point, but, I'm not going to mess aro
  7. They did! The 386SX garbage clones were basically faster 286es. They supported almost no memory (usually 8 megs max) and they did, I'm pretty sure, almost the exact same "32-bit CPU on a 16-bit bus" kind of thing. In 1994-5 the PC vendors were also doing the same thing as the Apple, installing Pentium OverDrives on 486 platforms. And in 1990, the PC vendors were doing the same thing as Apple was at the low end, reheating 8086 and 8088 as budget-oriented machines even as really fast 386 and really-really fast 486es were launching. EDIT for clarity: Here's Wikipedia expla
  8. To that point, L3 isn't even always a good or a preferable solution. More/faster L2 or even L1 is absolutely better, and, today Apple does control the architecture of its processors and (so far as we know/I've seen) they don't use any L3, in favor of a really big on-die L2. That Apple (and/or Motorola) chose to use L3 for the G3s points to either Apple looking to balance cost and performance or Motorola not having a real way to make the memory keep up with every other extant platform at that time, so having it in that context was better than not having it, but not having needed it
  9. Idly, I have yet to personally see any Mac equipment that doesn't auto-negotiate fine on all my gigabit hardware, I have one LCPDS card that won't connect, and, it's from a third party and I suspect it of being faulty or having a jumper that I've missed that's set wrong. That card will just pop out so I'm just gonna go get a working LCPDS card and toss the one I have or pass it on to someone who has the energy to tinker with it. Though, every Mac from the Plus to the Beige supports localtalk and all the localtalk bridges I've ever seen will auto-negotiate on whatever random gigabit
  10. I'd need to look into how far MO is cross-compatible, 230 might work in 1.3 drives, but I'll be honest, I don't remember. In general, 640 drives advertised compatibility with 230 media, so that's a safe option. I believe there's USB/FW/IDE 640 drives available as well. W/re networking, you can use ethernet or an ET/LT bridge, but the server software is a concern. ASIP: Mac OS 9 max disk size is regrettably 2TB AFAIK, and neither ASIP nor built-in AppleShare can re-share volumes, but 10.2 or possibly 10.3 should be able to share large volumes and still talk the Apples wi
  11. I wrote up something much longer than this, then deleted it because I think the point got lost in the details. As with the Macintosh 6200 family, I think that these systems often get mis-judged. We often end up comparing them to systems that cost a lot more and had different form factors and ultimately different market segments. By 1993, you could get a Color Classic for $1,200 or so, often with a copy of ClarisWorks. That was several hundred dollars short of any other Mac. A 605 was $980 but you'd need a $320 monitor and an $80 keyboard, absolute minimum, to boot it to
  12. MO is among the most reliable media for vintage Macs. Unfortunately, it's pretty expensive. It's a beige whale of mine. It should be fun, although expect the normal kinds of annoyances you get when adding a new type of thing to your ecosystem. It's not impossible for these devices to fail (although they should fail in a way that doesn't take your data with them) and of course we're talking about electronics that are old enough to serve/vote/drink/smoke etc, so, you know, expect the normal kinds of problems with those things. That said, I haven't heard that the failure rate on these is too high
  13. 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
  14. 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).
  15. 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
  16. 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
  17. 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.
  18. 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
  19. 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,
  20. 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
  21. 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.
  22. 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
  23. 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.)
  24. 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.
×
×
  • Create New...