Thread

Power Macintosh 4400/200 Clean Reinstall

68kMLA Troubleshooting 35 posts Nov 25, 2007 to Jan 23, 2008

#1 Sun, 25 Nov 2007 - 20:23 68kMLA

After not doing a clean reinstall for 3 years, my 4400 now takes 10 minutes to start up. I guess it's time for a clean reinstall. ;D But which OS will I use? :?: 7.6.1 is fast. 8.1 is newer. But which shall I install?

#2 Sun, 25 Nov 2007 - 21:29 68kMLA

Mac OS 7.6.1, due to the fact that it only has 32 MB of RAM. Mac OS 8.1 would be cramped in 32 MB. (This is assuming that you don't run any Virtual Memory which would slow it down.)

#3 Sun, 25 Nov 2007 - 21:32 68kMLA

8.1 if only because i hate 7

8 is never more modern with better file and drive support

it also supports hfs+

#4 Sun, 25 Nov 2007 - 21:57 68kMLA

I only have Mac OS 8.0 full install, so I wouldn't be able to format as HFS+. Mac OS 7.6.1 was fast when I had it installed, so I think I'll install that. Since I have just one license, I'll have to delete it from my LC III. It shouldn't matter because it was incredibly slow anyway.

#5 Sun, 25 Nov 2007 - 21:59 68kMLA

terrible terrible mistake there but its your mac

#6 Sun, 25 Nov 2007 - 22:01 68kMLA

Where's the option for 9.1 (or 9.2.2 if you can be bothered with OS9Helper)?

#7 Sun, 25 Nov 2007 - 22:04 68kMLA

I don't have a retail copy of that. At one time it was installed on it though, and it was faster than 8.1 is right now…with the 32mb RAM. I think I'll save the 8.1 for if I ever get something like a 9600.

#8 Sun, 25 Nov 2007 - 22:06 68kMLA

Terrible terrible mistake? What makes 7.6 so bad? I don't want to make a terrible terrible mistake. :-x

#9 Sun, 25 Nov 2007 - 22:16 68kMLA

Terrible terrible mistake? What makes 7.6 so bad? I don't want to make a terrible terrible mistake. :-x

i just never cared for 7 its form factor the apperance

when 7.6 was released 7 was dragging on for 6 years its odl out date dugly and unstable you have to add more extensions then worth it to get it up to os 8 level

off course i loath the whole classic mac os im soley a os X user

#10 Sun, 25 Nov 2007 - 22:22 68kMLA

Terrible terrible mistake? What makes 7.6 so bad? I don't want to make a terrible terrible mistake. :-x

7.x is not a good choice for a PPC in my view - it's very old compared with what they are capable of running, and it contains a lot more 68k code than the later releases. OS9 is abandonware nowadays, you shouldn't feel bad about acquiring a copy

#11 Sun, 25 Nov 2007 - 22:54 68kMLA

I don't mind System 7 myself, it will always define the Classic OS to me. It was how I first saw the Mac OS in magazine screenshots and was on the first Mac I ever bought, an LC475. OS 8 and 9 always seem like half-assed efforts to me. Where MS were at least trying to drag Windows out of the 16 bit 3.1 doldrums, Mac OS just kind of stagnated after version 7 (At least until OS X that is

)

Given the choices, 7.6.1 would be the sensible choice since even though 8.1 would be more optimised, it would probably choke in 32MB of RAM.

#12 Sun, 25 Nov 2007 - 23:01 68kMLA

I'd say 8.1, mainly because that's what I installed on my 4400! However it has 64MB of RAM which makes a big difference.

#13 Sun, 25 Nov 2007 - 23:45 68kMLA

I think I'll try Mac OS 8.1. If it's too slow, I can always revert to 7.6.1.

#14 Mon, 26 Nov 2007 - 00:12 68kMLA

I'd install 7.6.1 just to get a running system and then get a memory upgrade and boost it up to 8.1. The difference in overhead between 7.6.1 and 8.1 is not huge and the 4400 is fast enough that 8.1 won't make it snail slow. It's not until you start getting into 8.5 or higher that overhead starts to become a problem on older machines with limited resources.

#15 Mon, 26 Nov 2007 - 00:44 68kMLA

I'm going to go install 8.1 and see if it's fast enough. If not, I'll install 7.6. If you believe this is a bad idea, speak now or forever hold your piece.

EDIT: I used the wrong piece! Ironically, I was eating cake while I posted that.

#16 Mon, 26 Nov 2007 - 01:00 68kMLA

Since I have just one license, I'll have to delete it from my LC III.

Not true, regardless of what EULAs say. It's just not true:

In the United States, once you own a copy of a program, you can back it up, compile it, run it, and even modify it as necessary, without permission from the copyright holder. See 17 USC 117.For example, after purchasing a copy of Microsoft Windows NT 4.0 Workstation---which is a poorly tuned version of NT 4.0 Server, minus a few utilities---you can back it up, apply a small patch that fixes the tuning, and run the result.

Microsoft hates this. Of course, Microsoft could restrict your rights by demanding that you sign a contract before you get a copy of Windows NT, but this would not do wonders for Windows sales.

So Microsoft puts a ``license'' on all of its software and pretends that you don't have the right to use the software unless you agree to the ``license.'' You can't patch Windows without their permission, according to the license; you can't use NT Workstation for more than 10 simultaneous connections; you must give Microsoft your first-born son. (Or something like that.)

The problem with Microsoft's license is that it's unenforceable. You can simply ignore it. Microsoft can't win a copyright infringement lawsuit: you own the software that Microsoft sold you, and Congress gave you the right to use it.

http://cr.yp.to/softwarelaw.html

Listen to Daniel!

#17 Mon, 26 Nov 2007 - 01:25 68kMLA

Then why did I just purchase a Mac OS X Leopard Family Pack? :?: Now I'm confused.

#18 Mon, 26 Nov 2007 - 04:35 68kMLA

I've decided on 8, because I just had a pretty bothersome time with 7 on my LC III, which made me not be able to do the install today.

I will install 8, and upgrade the RAM eventually.

#19 Mon, 26 Nov 2007 - 07:59 68kMLA

Go with 8.1, it has a bit more PPC native code than 7.6.1, can run more software, and shouldn't have any problems at all running under 32MB of RAM. My LC475 has OS 8.1 running under 36 and it flies like a bird.

#20 Mon, 26 Nov 2007 - 09:48 68kMLA

Then why did I just purchase a Mac OS X Leopard Family Pack? :?: Now I'm confused.

Because Apple Legal believe their own hype.

You're not breaking copyright law by copying programmes from a CD you purchased to a computer you own, that's been proven in courts as well (and should be obvous to anyone who doesn't work for *IAA et al). The EULA is bunk, that's been proven in courts - so you're not breaking any laws by running the either. It's a scam, basically.

#21 Mon, 26 Nov 2007 - 11:04 68kMLA

Making a backup copy of the installation CD and running a copy on two machines aren't the same thing though - you can copy the disc for personal use but most software is only licensed for use on one machine at a time. Not that most people are bothered about it though, it only really matters if you're running a business as you can then get busted by people like the BSA if you don't follow the licences to the letter. As a home user it's largely irrelevant, maybe a moral issue for some people with newer stuff like OS X but it doesn't really make any difference for abandonware as you can't pay Apple for additional licences any more anyway.

#22 Mon, 26 Nov 2007 - 18:05 68kMLA

most software is only licensed for use on one machine at a time.

... according to the End User License Agreement, which, as it has been proven in American courts, is completely non-binding and invalid. The rights that you have and haven't are described elsewhere, you don't give or get anything by clicking 'I accept'.. You have a right to run software that you have legally aquired. Like I said.

#23 Mon, 26 Nov 2007 - 19:01 68kMLA

Aren't you buying the right to use the software as opposed to the software itself though? I'm sure this has been discussed before and that's what we thought. I don't know what the situation is if you change the contents of the Eula before you click "I agree" though, which you could as you only agree not the modify the software when you agree to the licence!

#24 Mon, 26 Nov 2007 - 21:25 68kMLA

most software is only licensed for use on one machine at a time.

Click to expand...

... according to the End User License Agreement, which, as it has been proven in American courts, is completely non-binding and invalid. The rights that you have and haven't are described elsewhere, you don't give or get anything by clicking 'I accept'.. You have a right to run software that you have legally aquired. Like I said.

If you are right then Microsoft is breaking the law with Product Activation. It would be illegal of them to deny you the ability to install your copy of Windows as many times as you want to on as many machines as you want to. I do not think MS would expose themselves to the potential lawsuits and/or government prosecution if they weren't sure they were on firm legal ground.

#25 Sat, 19 Jan 2008 - 17:20 68kMLA

terrible terrible mistake there but its your mac

Some people would saying owning a 4400 is a terrible mistake! [

] ]'>

#26 Sat, 19 Jan 2008 - 21:31 68kMLA

terrible terrible mistake there but its your mac

Click to expand...

Some people would saying owning a 4400 is a terrible mistake! [] ]'>

Not at all!

#27 Sun, 20 Jan 2008 - 07:15 68kMLA

I had a 4400 once. Worst Mac I ever owned.

#28 Sun, 20 Jan 2008 - 14:22 68kMLA

From the specs and the descriptions I've seen on the usual old Mac sites, it doesn't seem like that bad a Mac technically. It was just the most PC-looking Macintosh that's existed for its time. I think the only REAL complaint that I've seen was the sharpness of the case and how difficult it might be, but I could even be wrong on that. I had a Moto StarMax 4000 for a bit and I loved it. I probably would have liked the 4400 but I'd have to experience one for myself.

#29 Sun, 20 Jan 2008 - 17:59 68kMLA

Putting it back together is torture, but it otherwise is a good mac. I have an Xclaim VR in mine to use it as a TV with AppleDesign II speakers.

#30 Sun, 20 Jan 2008 - 20:26 68kMLA

The real problem with the 4400 was the expensive ram it used. Not to mention the 144 megabyte ram ceiling.

#31 Sun, 20 Jan 2008 - 22:44 68kMLA

Max RAM is 160 MB (1x 32 MB and 2x 64 MB).

The 3400c has a max ram of 144 MB.

Peace,

Drew

#32 Mon, 21 Jan 2008 - 01:36 68kMLA

160 MB was the same for my Motorola StarMax 4000. If that's the big deal then really it's not that bad a Mac. I would probably love it then, although as mentioned I'm sure it's not as easy to get into as my StarMax was.

For Mac OS 9.1, 160 MB was more than enough for the StarMax. I also had bypassed the internal video by using a 16 MB Voodoo3 2000 PCI card and that helped tremendously. It also ran Debian "Sarge" nicely albeit not as speedily as Mac OS 9.1.

#33 Tue, 22 Jan 2008 - 13:21 68kMLA

The real problem with the 4400 was the expensive ram it used. Not to mention the 144 megabyte ram ceiling.

Yeah, my mistake. I actually have had a bunch of surplus 4400's. The ram was expensive. 3.3 volt 168 pin dimms iirc. One plus of the 4400 is it used ide drives imho.

#34 Wed, 23 Jan 2008 - 00:08 68kMLA

...I think the only REAL complaint that I've seen was the sharpness of the case and how difficult it might be....

I can back that one up: my 4400 once gave me a rather nasty cut on the back of my hand. I'm very reluctant to work inside it again now.

#35 Wed, 23 Jan 2008 - 04:00 68kMLA

...I think the only REAL complaint that I've seen was the sharpness of the case and how difficult it might be....

Click to expand...

I can back that one up: my 4400 once gave me a rather nasty cut on the back of my hand. I'm very reluctant to work inside it again now.

I guess I've cut myself so many times on some old PC cases that I've just gotten used to getting around those sharp sections. I guess this might be the reason I don't see this as a major drawback to the 4400, and I've had my share of REALLY good internals on other Macs. :-/