Thread
Power Macintosh 4400/200 Clean Reinstall
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?
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.)
8.1 if only because i hate 7
8 is never more modern with better file and drive support
it also supports hfs+
8 is never more modern with better file and drive support
it also supports hfs+
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.
terrible terrible mistake there but its your mac
Where's the option for 9.1 (or 9.2.2 if you can be bothered with OS9Helper)? 
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.
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
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
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.
)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.
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.
I think I'll try Mac OS 8.1. If it's too slow, I can always revert to 7.6.1.
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.
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.
EDIT: I used the wrong piece! Ironically, I was eating cake while I posted that.
Not true, regardless of what EULAs say. It's just not true:
http://cr.yp.to/softwarelaw.html
Listen to Daniel!
Then why did I just purchase a Mac OS X Leopard Family Pack? :?: Now I'm confused.
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.
I will install 8, and upgrade the RAM eventually.
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.
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.
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.
... 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.
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!
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.
Some people would saying owning a 4400 is a terrible mistake! [
] ]'>Not at all!Some people would saying owning a 4400 is a terrible mistake! [
I had a 4400 once. Worst Mac I ever owned.
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.
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. 
The real problem with the 4400 was the expensive ram it used. Not to mention the 144 megabyte ram ceiling.