Thread
Assembling the Fastest OS 9 Machine
I´d like you to help with your great experiance to virtually assemble the fastest OS 9 machine ever. Interresting is to clear some questions regarding the most powerful possibilities. I´ll update this post after your suggestions.
Prozessor:
MAXPower G4 with a 2GHz 7448 prozessor seems to be the fastest availaible OS9 possibility. I heard that OS 9 cannot use the power of a second prozessor (is that approved?), so the dual 1,8 GHz from Powerlogix or Sonnettech are no options for OS 9?
Motherboard:
Quicksilver G4 because of the 133MHz System-Bus. Is there a big difference to QS 2002 to take that model? Why is there no Prozessor upgrade for 167MHz systembus-models?
Graphic 3D:
Seems to be the GeForce4 Ti graphics card with 128 MB DDR-Ram, which got the best 3D performance for OS 9. Later ATI Models don´t 3D at OS 9 at all, and 9200 is not as powerful like GeForce4 Ti. Am I right?
Graphics 2D:
In fact I didn´t realize a big difference (in 2D) when I swiched from my Village Tronic Mac Picasso 540 (4MB) to a Voodoo 5500 (64MB) back in 2002. So what´s the card with fastest 2D performance? I read somwhere that still the Formac ProFormance III is the choice, and much better than any ATI or GeForce?
Ram:
1,5 GB
Is there really no possibility to use more? For example as Ramdisk?
Harddisk:
Seems to be still a SCSI-Raid with some 15k drives, Fujitsu Allegro 9 (3,3ms) for example? (ouch this is loud). Do SATA-Raids reach this performance?
Others, ...
If someone would be verry rich we could think about an SATA Ramdisc with 16 or 32 GB DDR Ram as "work volume". Acard is offering such things for $ 500 up.
Your suggestions:
...
Prozessor:
MAXPower G4 with a 2GHz 7448 prozessor seems to be the fastest availaible OS9 possibility. I heard that OS 9 cannot use the power of a second prozessor (is that approved?), so the dual 1,8 GHz from Powerlogix or Sonnettech are no options for OS 9?
Motherboard:
Quicksilver G4 because of the 133MHz System-Bus. Is there a big difference to QS 2002 to take that model? Why is there no Prozessor upgrade for 167MHz systembus-models?
Graphic 3D:
Seems to be the GeForce4 Ti graphics card with 128 MB DDR-Ram, which got the best 3D performance for OS 9. Later ATI Models don´t 3D at OS 9 at all, and 9200 is not as powerful like GeForce4 Ti. Am I right?
Graphics 2D:
In fact I didn´t realize a big difference (in 2D) when I swiched from my Village Tronic Mac Picasso 540 (4MB) to a Voodoo 5500 (64MB) back in 2002. So what´s the card with fastest 2D performance? I read somwhere that still the Formac ProFormance III is the choice, and much better than any ATI or GeForce?
Ram:
1,5 GB
Is there really no possibility to use more? For example as Ramdisk?
Harddisk:
Seems to be still a SCSI-Raid with some 15k drives, Fujitsu Allegro 9 (3,3ms) for example? (ouch this is loud). Do SATA-Raids reach this performance?
Others, ...
If someone would be verry rich we could think about an SATA Ramdisc with 16 or 32 GB DDR Ram as "work volume". Acard is offering such things for $ 500 up.
Your suggestions:
...
Sonnet lists an upgrade for the Mirrored Drive Door. The higher Buss speed will make a difference plus faster RAM AGP slot etc.
Wayne
Wayne
Yes, but the 2nd processor can´t be used by OS 9. That´s what I read at different places. It will fit, it will work, but buying an Dual G4 for OS 9 resoults in using just one CPU. (But I´m wondering what earlier Dual-Macs did with 8.6 or 9.0.4 for example?)
Both Quicksilver and Quicksilver 2002 heave 133MHz System Bus Speed, also like PC133 SDRam. Are there other differences why you would take a later QS model?
QS2002 can use HDDs larger than 128GB on the internal PATA buses.. but that is about it as far as I know and it does not do you much good if you want SATA or SCSI RAID.
I've never heard that any particular, fairly modern, OS can't utilize dual/multiple processors. NEVER believe (without checking multiple reliable sources) what you've "read at different places" on the web.
IIRC, it's the availability of multi-threaded (?) software (apps) that pose the problem for multiple processors under any OS. Are you certain that something like Photoshop doesn't utilize dual procs under OS9? I'd almost bet that there are some packages that will. As you said yourself, Apple offered multi-proc systems under earlier OS releases, that's a sure sign that something probably utilizes of them.
Listen to the man, a faster system bus speed, RAM bus speed, etc. will always make a HUGE difference in overall system performance.
I'm, slowly, getting a QS'02 Dual 1 GHz system up and running under OS 9 only myself. At some point I'll probably snag the later Dual 1.25 GHz (dunno if it was a QS or MDD offhand, it doesn't really matter to me) that was the fastest/last Native 9 System ever offered by Apple.
It sounds like you're setting up a system for older graphics apps, which is exactly why I'm setting one up. I've got all the peripherals I need for "Living in an OS 9 World" (a topic I'm planning to post when my new toy is fully (maybe even relatively) functional, now that I've picked up a Nikon CoolScan from that era. I have boxes full of licensed Graphics, CAD/CAM and Productivity software/docs for OS 9.
. . . and lots of boxes of slides and negatives to work my way through. :-/
Keep us posted on your progress, but slow it down a bit and make sure your research is thorough, comrade.
jt: speed pusher/hacker of obsolescent Macs from waaaaay back in the day! = 8-o
DA, QS and MDD all have 4x AGP.
I forgot, there's only 4x AGP slot in a MDD but a number of the OS 9 bootable MDDs have 167mhz bus speeds and DDR RAM and ATA 100. Having a faster processor on a slow bus is limiting. If the processor has to wait while it moves data in and out of RAM then it's spending time sitting idle.
I do a bit of Mac collecting and like upgrade machines. Sometimes an older machine with a processor upgrade has a faster processor than a newer machine but the newer machine has a higher bus speed and faster RAM and runs circled around the supposedly faster older machine
Wayne
Read that: http://eshop.macsales.com/item/PowerLogix/PF47D1500C/ at the bottom the point "System Requirements" and that: http://lowendmac.com/reviews/08rev/maxpower-1.8-ghz-single.html at "Classic Mac OS Benchmarks" first paragraph. As I told, I´m not absoluteley sure, that´s why I´m asking here. So if someone can tell what OS 9 is doing with a Dual G4, ... ?
I´m not certain, but I´d like to heave informations
Maybe you are right, ...Maybe my english is too bad, but that´s what I said at my first posting: QS because of the higher System Bus Speed of 133 MHz, ... ?
I´m setting up nothing at the moment. I´m happy with my 9600 G4 800. It´s only virtual at the moment - for really seeing my upgrade possibilities for the next decade
Let me know, when you are ready.
Hey that´s exactly what I´m doing here, asking for further knowledge and informations about things I´m not absoluteley surebut slow it down a bit and make sure your research is thorough, comrade.
But I need people willing to share their knowledge, for example direct comparison of 32MB ProFormance with a 128MB GeForce4 Ti in 2D.To tell it again, I´m asking about prooved knowledge not collective speculation
None of the Prozessor Upgrades is listed(!) to work with a G4 with 167MHz System Bus speed. Not Powerlogix, not Sonnettech, not FastMac, Not Newertech, Not OWC, not GigaDesigns will work with 167MHz. Any other experiances? If yes, please tell me - thats the meaning of that thread!
why you want an os 9 only machine is beyond me
but the last os 9 capabel machien apple offerd was the 2003 reintroduction of the 1,25 dual G4 MDD
but the last os 9 capabel machien apple offerd was the 2003 reintroduction of the 1,25 dual G4 MDD
what exactly do you need an upgrade for on a 1,25 or 1,42 ghz MDD ?
that machine on its own is already a monster especially if you have the 1,42 ghz version the speed difference between the 1,42 ghz and a 1,8 or 2,0 versions are neglicable
hunt down an MDD they are bette rmore versatile machines and are already mostly tricked out
id rather have an MDD then a QS
Simply because I don´t like OS X, and will never use it. And because I think that OS 9 is one of the most logical Operating Systems ever.
The later MDD models cannot boot OS 9. the "reintroducions" was a kind of fake (you have to have OS X installed). And 2 GHz in comparison to 1 GHz makes a difference.
I´m simply asking for the most powerful OS 9 system. That´s all.
The early Sonnet MDD cards had a problem of sometimes setting the bus speed to 133 but that's supposed to be solved and the currant cards should run on a MDD with a bus speed of 167mhz
Wayne
There are a small handful of programs for OS 8.6 > 9.2.2 that make use of the second processor. Back in those days, apps had to make specific use of the second processor. If you ran two non-specific apps at the same time, they would both run on the first processor.
Photoshop made use of the second processor. Some plugins also made use of AltiVec. These two combined would smoke any PC setup back in the day.
Photoshop made use of the second processor. Some plugins also made use of AltiVec. These two combined would smoke any PC setup back in the day.
Someday I will also build the fastest OS 9.x native booting machine (most likely a single processor system). I have yet to bother since high end G4's still cost a few dollars and I am in no hurry to get one.
The fastest current PPC system I have is only a B&W with a G4-450 CPU upgrade (needed for a Matrox RTMAC setup I have). Some people love OSX, I just tolerate it when I need a more modern web browser (on both B&W's) but I mostly boot into OS 9. The 68K to PPC change still used the old GUI way, I just find OSX to be very un-mac like.
The fastest current PPC system I have is only a B&W with a G4-450 CPU upgrade (needed for a Matrox RTMAC setup I have). Some people love OSX, I just tolerate it when I need a more modern web browser (on both B&W's) but I mostly boot into OS 9. The 68K to PPC change still used the old GUI way, I just find OSX to be very un-mac like.
Dual CPUs under OS 9: short version.
The operating system itself will not use the second processor.
Some programs will - mostly Photoshop
The operating system itself will not use the second processor.
Some programs will - mostly Photoshop
When current, Matrox stated, RTMac was only compatible with an AGP equipped G4 - however, I fitted a G4 500MHz ZIF card into a B&W which worked reasonably well
Any 167mhz NON FW800 logic board from the MDD series that has a 1.42 DP card installed makes for an 'official' fastest OS 9 bootable Mac
I cobbled a MDD 1.42 DP together from various spares and fitted a Radeon 9600XT Mac & PC edition card (fairly rare but fanless with 256Mb RAM onboard).
This made for decent video performance in Leopard and overall this Mac performed equal to a PowerMac G5 1.8 Uni I have had since new
As Bunsen so elegantly summarized: OS 9 (and earlier) cannot, itself, make use of a second processor. But some applications (such as Photoshop,) can. If you are not using an app that specifically makes use of a second processor, then it's going to waste.
The 167 MHz bus models would be faster, especially the DDR-RAM-equipped MDD models. And Sonnet does make a dual-1.8 GHz upgrade that is compatible with the MDD models.
The GeForce4 Ti is the fastest OS 9 compatible video card.
"2D" performance isn't all that different between high end video cards, other than for benchmarking. A GeForce4 Ti will be "fast enough" at 2D, while being the fastest at 3D.
The MDD models' hardware is capable of addressing 2 GB, but OS 9 is limited to 1.5 GB, period.
A SCSI RAID would be fast, but a SATA RAID of SSDs would win, hands-down. Of course, I don't know of any SATA RAID cards that work in OS 9. Although even one single fast SATA SSD may very well be faster than all but a truly massive SCSI RAID (that would require external hard drives.)
Yes, those are insanely fast; but modern SATA SSDs are almost as fast (the Intel X25-E can saturate the SATA bus both reading and writing, so even if the RAM-based one is theoretically faster, the SATA bus itself is the limiting factor.)
An overclocked 1.42 GHz Mirrored drive door will probably be faster than a 7447a because the Apple processor has 2 megs of L3 cache in addition to 256k of L2 cache as compared with 512k of L2 and no L3 cache on the Sonnet processor card. Coupled with the 167 MHz DDR memory bus and ATA/100 bus, I doubt you'd find anything faster.
With regards to disk, I'd say get a fast 1.5 or 2 TB drive with a SATA to IDE adapter. The drives these days are capable of running a real, honest 100 MB/sec, so you're not really going to see anything faster in such a machine.
With regards to disk, I'd say get a fast 1.5 or 2 TB drive with a SATA to IDE adapter. The drives these days are capable of running a real, honest 100 MB/sec, so you're not really going to see anything faster in such a machine.
Did the 1.42s come as FW400? I've only seen the 1.25s as FW400, though I imagine you could just get the 1.42 out of one of the FW800s and bolt it in.
Classilla is built on a 1.25GHz dual G4 MDD. I would have no patience for letting it build on a lesser machine, because even as it is from total utter scratch it takes over 90 minutes worst-case. I have a spare bodydouble for it too; I take no chances.
This sounds like very good advice. Even without overclocking, the much larger cache should give the Apple CPU a fair chance of keeping up with the Sonnet. And it'll be a heck of a lot cheaper.
Also note that the L3 cache is 2MB per processor, not shared.
Note however that the dual 1.42GHz CPU was only shipped in the non-OS 9 booting Firewire 800 MDDs. The fastest OS 9 booting machines were the dual 1.25GHz 2002 FW400 MDD, or the "reissue" 2003 FW400 single 1.25GHz MDD
Based on this, my theoretical formula for the fastest OS 9 machine:
- 2003 re-issue FW400 motherboard
- Apple dual 1.42 GHz CPU from FW800 machine
- overclocking optional
Even if you had to buy two MDDs, swap the CPUs and sell the second machine, that should work out way cheaper than buying a QS or MDD and the Sonnet 2x2GHz.
As to drive choices: How about a Firewire 800 PCI card with FW-SATA or FW-IDE converters? That should be usable in OS 9, right? And software RAIDable?
My setup works fine on that B&W, I have a Radeon video card in the 66mhz PCI slot (the model with the fan before they started naming them 7000 and took out T&L). I should get an early AGP system and move the setup to it someday. High speed G4 ZIF cards are still pricey.
I'm happy with my B&W G3 with maxed out RAM (1 GB), upgraded 1.1 GHz processor (well, it's advertised as 1 GHz but the setting goes to 11, er, I mean 1.1), and OS 9.2.2. I'm more productive in Mac OS 9 since I spend less time bullsh*tting around online. :lol:
I have that GPU in the 66MHz slot, but without the fan (DVI & VGA) - it came with a B&W that I collected for free in a Shopping mall car park. It has a ZIP drive too. The G4 500MHz ZIF card was sourced off ebay, someone was selling a Beige G3 with one fitted. I offered to buy the card only and they disposed of the G3 separately, no jumper settings - just plug and play
In my case they did - I was surprised to find this to be so when I bought a FW400 1.42 NEW just before the original PM G5 came out. It became faulty 5 years later, so I bought another that had a faulty processor and transferred it over as that one was FW800 only.
Working 1.42's were fetching crazy money on ebay this time last year...
The logic boards are interchangeable as long as they are 167 bus speed...
What are the exact differences between that two motherboards (except that the 2003 FW400 needs a installed X to boot native into 9)? Everymac.com and others have no answers for me.
The advice to overclock a original Apple 1,42 Ghz seems to be good. I found several pages with exact informations. Should often work up to 1,8 GHz.
About Ram-disk, the Gigabyte i-RAM is availaible for less than Euro 200 including RAM. And that should be a verry well 4GB harddisc for OS 9 and scratch partition! Ever seen a Oldworld machine booting from RAM-disk? That rocks!
I posted this over at PPCMLA, but since we're talking about it here too, I got one of the Sonnet dual 1.8s (1833MHz 7447A) over the weekend. Not cheap. But it sure is zippy! Virtual PC, for example, runs at a howling pace.
Classilla doesn't build a great deal faster, but admittedly its compilation is largely diskbound and the step processing is driven by Apple Events, which are slow.
With that, this system has a Radeon 9000 Pro, the dual 1.8s, 2GB RAM (1.5GB in OS 9) and of course the 167MHz bus, 2MB L3, etc. So that's definitely a big bruiser for the old OS.
Classilla doesn't build a great deal faster, but admittedly its compilation is largely diskbound and the step processing is driven by Apple Events, which are slow.
With that, this system has a Radeon 9000 Pro, the dual 1.8s, 2GB RAM (1.5GB in OS 9) and of course the 167MHz bus, 2MB L3, etc. So that's definitely a big bruiser for the old OS.
I have a dual 1.8 GHz (1833 MHz) 7447a Sonnet card in an Xserve with 167 MHz bus and 2 gigs - it'll never see OS 9, but it runs OS X very well. It's actually pushed in excess of 500mbps of traffic with 500 Apache daemons, which is much more than I imagined it'd be able to do.
Recently I got a single processor 1.7 GHz (1733 MHz) 7448 for a Quicksilver primarily because of the 1 meg of CPU speed L2 cache (as opposed to 512k in the 7447a), and between that and a fast 1 TB SATA drive on the IDE bus (SATA-IDE adapter), it's noticeably faster at compiling than another 1.8 GHz 7447a system.
Recently I got a single processor 1.7 GHz (1733 MHz) 7448 for a Quicksilver primarily because of the 1 meg of CPU speed L2 cache (as opposed to 512k in the 7447a), and between that and a fast 1 TB SATA drive on the IDE bus (SATA-IDE adapter), it's noticeably faster at compiling than another 1.8 GHz 7447a system.
Yeah, cache is so important on those G4s because of the system bus. I notice that POWER7 is strongly emphasizing cache as well, which means that as much as things change they stay the same in POWER-land.
Any high end workstation/server class CPU has lots of cache compared to normal desktop/consumer variants.
Nothing new there.
Nothing new there.