Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I recently got 256 MB of RAM for my old Mac, in the form of four 64 MB chips. The RAM I already had in there was in the form of two 16 MB chips and one 32 MB. 

 

So I have two options. I can put 288 MB of interleaved RAM in this machine...

or I can put 320 MB of non-interleaved RAM in there. 

 

What do you think? 

It's a PowerMac 7300. Running all OSes from 7.5.5 to 10.2.8

Link to post
Share on other sites

Interleaving RAM will give an improvement of 5 - 10% in memory throughput, which probably means nothing in the real world.  But give your 7300 all the speed it needs and go for the 288MB interleaved setup; DIMMS can be picked up really cheaply if you want to max it out.

Link to post
Share on other sites

For System 7, anything for more than 64MB RAM is obscene. However, you also have OS X in there. I'd save up for and search for 8x 128MB DIMMs and get 1GB RAM in there.

How well does 10.2.8 run on your PM7300? Sluggish? Quite well? I do hope that you have a powerful graphics card in there to help with the aqua interface.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@novusgordo: I suppose when the performance is so awful that it can't really be used for anything (unless you absolutely must).

 

I try to run the machine at its original OS version because I believe that it will get optimal performance (usually, but not always), but then I have 5-6 macs in semi-active service that range from 1987 (SE) to an MDD (2003), so I can afford to have

That being said, I do have, for example, Mac OS 8.1 on my IIfx so that I can access a local HFS+ volumes. It doesn't run too badly either.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Another thought: at what point is it a better investment just to keep your eye out for another machine to run Mac OS X rather than try to shoehorn it into this one?

 

I have plenty of modern Macs running up to date OS X. The purpose of this old Mac is to run as many old versions of Mac OS as I can. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

For System 7, anything for more than 64MB RAM is obscene. However, you also have OS X in there. I'd save up for and search for 8x 128MB DIMMs and get 1GB RAM in there.

How well does 10.2.8 run on your PM7300? Sluggish? Quite well? I do hope that you have a powerful graphics card in there to help with the aqua interface.

 

It is sluggish but I don't think it's a RAM issue, I think it's more of a "200 MHz" issue. I wasn't able to find any 128 GB DIMMs. And I'm probably not going to buy any more RAM for this machine, what I have should be plenty for what little I'm actually going to do with it. All that said, you really didn't answer my original question :D Give them RAM i *HAVE* in hand, am I better off with 288 MB interleaved or 320 MB non-interleaved? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

what I have should be plenty for what little I'm actually going to do with it.

 

Unless it has a big L2, a 7200rpm HD and an ATI Video card (any), I don't see what you could do with it...

 

Are the 16Mbs 60ns or 70ns?

Edited by 604ev
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, but that's a IIfx. :p It's probably faster than, say, a Quadra 605 anyway!

And I'm likewise, except that both of my pre-System 7 Macs are still projects and not in working state. :(

They are about the same, speedwise, at least according to Speedometer. So, the slowest Quadra was at least as fast as the fastest 68030. The new Quadra 700 was almost half of the price and much faster than the much hyped IIfx in 1991.

 

That being said, Mac OS 8.1 came out in 1998 and the IIfx in 1990. Along with the IIci, It is probably the only 68030 that can run Mac OS 8.1 reasonably well. I008com has a machine made in 1996 and is running an OS made in 2003, so comparisons are not unreasonable.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...