Thread
Well it does run quite sluggish as you'd expect (7.1 is much nippier). But it seems stable enough so far. I don't need 8.1 on this for anything in particular, I just did it for the hell of it.
I'm not sure if it would run better with more RAM or more VRAM, or if it's the 030 that's making it run slow. I would like to figure out how to get System Profiler to work. I'm sure it's a string somewhere that needs editing.
I don't think an 020 could handle it though.
I'm not sure if it would run better with more RAM or more VRAM, or if it's the 030 that's making it run slow. I would like to figure out how to get System Profiler to work. I'm sure it's a string somewhere that needs editing.
I don't think an 020 could handle it though.
It's probably the Appearance Manager (Platinum interface) that slows everything down and eats into your memory. I've consistently heard recommendations to not install it when running 7.6.1 on old hardware. Even old PPCs. Although, some 040 owners are content with 8.1. YMMV.
Unfortunately, I don't think you can turn it off in 8.1.
8.1 on a 020 would probably be extremely painful, even if you could find some way to hack it on.
Unfortunately, I don't think you can turn it off in 8.1.
8.1 on a 020 would probably be extremely painful, even if you could find some way to hack it on.
If you try to mount a HFS+ volume under System 7 you simply get a tiny locked volume with a read-me file called "Where_have_all_my_files_gone" explaining the difference, and that you need OS 8.1 or later. I've never heard of anyone developing a driver that allows HFS+ access on System 7 - I only wish such a thing existed.
That is what I meant: a driver should allow the system to handle something, like a HFS+ volume. A few years ago some "driverguru" posted interesting notes on this board. A lot things should be possible for one how knows about putting bits in the appropriate order -
I benchmarked the LC III earlier comparing 7.1 with 8.1 using Speedometer 4.0.1. Here are the results (winning scores are bolded):
7.1
CPU: 0.432
Graphics: 0.376
Disk: 1.827
Math: 1.498
8.1
CPU: 0.431
Graphics: 0.371
Disk: 1.771
Math: 1.503
In 8.1 math was slightly faster but disk performance was down. Which was surprising as the article that inspired me to run the Speedometer tests said it was up to 30% faster in 8.1. But then they were comparing it to 7.5.5 and not 7.1.
Still there isn't that much between them after all.
7.1
CPU: 0.432
Graphics: 0.376
Disk: 1.827
Math: 1.498
8.1
CPU: 0.431
Graphics: 0.371
Disk: 1.771
Math: 1.503
In 8.1 math was slightly faster but disk performance was down. Which was surprising as the article that inspired me to run the Speedometer tests said it was up to 30% faster in 8.1. But then they were comparing it to 7.5.5 and not 7.1.
Still there isn't that much between them after all.
The "faster disk access" thing advertised in 8 seems to be BS. If you go over to System 7 Today, they reached the same conclusion when benchmarking a PM8600. The minor increase in FPU might be a fluke. There's almost always minor variation between benchmark runs, even under the same conditions.
In all, that's not too shabby, but more RAM would definately be a nice thing.
In all, that's not too shabby, but more RAM would definately be a nice thing.