Thread
Making a G4 FW800 OS9 bootable.
I have just acquired this machine:
I bought it hoping it as an MDD, but unsure. Turns out it was a FW800. Oh well. All is not lost.
I intend to retrofit it to MDD spec and use it as my main OS9 boot machine.
I'm sure a motherboard swap is in order. But what else?
Help me, oh knowledgable compatriots.
I bought it hoping it as an MDD, but unsure. Turns out it was a FW800. Oh well. All is not lost.
I intend to retrofit it to MDD spec and use it as my main OS9 boot machine.
I'm sure a motherboard swap is in order. But what else?
Help me, oh knowledgable compatriots.
As far as I know you need one of the non-FW 800 boards, and the special MDD OS 9 CD. I hear Apple will send you one if you explain your situation. I also hear they'll send you 10.5 so you can run a modern version of iTunes and buy digital content from them (or something like that). Someone else will have to confirm that.
Since you said you were looking to stock up on parts, you could buy a complete MDD capable of OS 9 and sell the motherboard to help fund other purchases. Everything else should be good for spare parts. Or sell the motherboard and use the funds to buy one that'll take OS 9?
Since you said you were looking to stock up on parts, you could buy a complete MDD capable of OS 9 and sell the motherboard to help fund other purchases. Everything else should be good for spare parts. Or sell the motherboard and use the funds to buy one that'll take OS 9?
MoBos appear to be available and cheap enough on eBay. Certainly cheaper than a whole nother machine.
So a MoBo swap, and the specific MDD OS9 CD. The CD will be harder.
Hmm. Any other parts or pieces?
So a MoBo swap, and the specific MDD OS9 CD. The CD will be harder.
Hmm. Any other parts or pieces?
As far as I know, no. I've never owned a MDD or done said swap, so I'd feel better once someone else confirms this. Keep in mind the faster boards after these went back to supporting 9...although any of them will be fast enough.
What faster boards after what went back to supporting OS9?
You'll have to elaborate. I only pretend to know what I'm talking about.
You'll have to elaborate. I only pretend to know what I'm talking about.
All FW400 MDDs support OS 9.2.2. This includes the "MDD 2003" made after the FW800 models.
None of the FW800 MDDs can do 9.2.2. As you may know, these are the ones with the single FW800 port on the back, and an Airport Extreme slot on the logic board instead of an Airport slot.
None of the FW800 MDDs can do 9.2.2. As you may know, these are the ones with the single FW800 port on the back, and an Airport Extreme slot on the logic board instead of an Airport slot.
Ah, I see now. I wasn't aware of the MDD 2003.
It looks like that's probably got the board I need.
http://lowendmac.com/ppc/mdd-power-mac-g4-1.25-ghz.html
Unlike the original MDD models which all had dual G4s, it has only the single 1.25 ghz chip. My FW800 has a single 1 ghz chip. I would suspect they would be the best match? Or should I find a board that has the same 133 bus instead of a 167 bus?
Thoughts?
It looks like that's probably got the board I need.
http://lowendmac.com/ppc/mdd-power-mac-g4-1.25-ghz.html
Unlike the original MDD models which all had dual G4s, it has only the single 1.25 ghz chip. My FW800 has a single 1 ghz chip. I would suspect they would be the best match? Or should I find a board that has the same 133 bus instead of a 167 bus?
Thoughts?
If you're going to pick up another motherboard then I'd go for the one with the faster bus speed. But if you're going to use that 1 ghz processor with it, you may have to change the resistor settings on it. Right now it's set to run at 7.5 times bus speed. With the faster bus speed it'll try to run at 1.25 ghz which it may or may not do depending on your luck.
If you're planning to keep the machine for a long time then you need to have a spare PSU since the MDD PSU's have a poor reputation. Unfortunately, they are not cheap. I haven't looked at eBay for a while but about a year ago the cheapest you could find one was about $70.
Those MDD 2003s were what I was talking about, sorry not to specify! Like waynestewart said, faster makes more sense unless you buy a board without a processor and need to use the existing 1 GHz on the new OS 9 capable board. I'm sure OS 9 will be fast either way, so price will probably be more important than speed.
I've called around quite a bit and talked to a bunch of different people, all skeptical:
"Why are you doing this? MDDs are built for OSX, not OS9. And their PSUs are crap!"
"This is very complicated. You're probably going to ruin your logic board."
"I've never heard of this before."
But this can't be a hard process. It just shows how inside the box many people are. I guess it's because they do what they do to actually, you know, get paid by people. I'm just geeking around for fun.
The MDD/FW800 take apart guide I got from lists part numbers for every component in all three generations of the MDD/FW800 machines. Basically everything's interchangeable except the logic boards and the CPU cards. I could probably get a 133Mhz board and make my current CPU work, but since I'm going to all this trouble, I'm going to do it right and find a 167Mhz board from June 2003 and matching CPU. I'll need to upgrade my RAM with the new board.
Boards and CPUs are way cheaper than the machines themselves right now, and shipping is way less, so this definitely seems the way to go. Given the $40 I've got in it, I'm hoping to have the whole thing tied down for no more than $100. Not free, but given that it will be the exact machine (actually two machines) I wanted and that it includes a matching monitor, and I found it within a day of deciding, I can't complain.
Any thoughts on whether I should go with a single or dual 1.25Ghz chip? The logic board is the same. I know that OS9 won't get much benefit from the dual chip, but OSX will, won't it? What about heat? Will I have more heat to deal with with two chips?
"Why are you doing this? MDDs are built for OSX, not OS9. And their PSUs are crap!"
"This is very complicated. You're probably going to ruin your logic board."
"I've never heard of this before."
But this can't be a hard process. It just shows how inside the box many people are. I guess it's because they do what they do to actually, you know, get paid by people. I'm just geeking around for fun.
The MDD/FW800 take apart guide I got from lists part numbers for every component in all three generations of the MDD/FW800 machines. Basically everything's interchangeable except the logic boards and the CPU cards. I could probably get a 133Mhz board and make my current CPU work, but since I'm going to all this trouble, I'm going to do it right and find a 167Mhz board from June 2003 and matching CPU. I'll need to upgrade my RAM with the new board.
Boards and CPUs are way cheaper than the machines themselves right now, and shipping is way less, so this definitely seems the way to go. Given the $40 I've got in it, I'm hoping to have the whole thing tied down for no more than $100. Not free, but given that it will be the exact machine (actually two machines) I wanted and that it includes a matching monitor, and I found it within a day of deciding, I can't complain.
Any thoughts on whether I should go with a single or dual 1.25Ghz chip? The logic board is the same. I know that OS9 won't get much benefit from the dual chip, but OSX will, won't it? What about heat? Will I have more heat to deal with with two chips?
BAM!
Just scored the motherboard, single chip 1.25 Ghz CPU with heatsink, 2Gigs of RAM, and modem card for $60 shipped.
Grand total, $100, and if I sell my motherboard and chip I'll make some of that back.
Definitely been my 24 hours.
Just scored the motherboard, single chip 1.25 Ghz CPU with heatsink, 2Gigs of RAM, and modem card for $60 shipped.
Grand total, $100, and if I sell my motherboard and chip I'll make some of that back.
Definitely been my 24 hours.
Just a clarifying point:
At the most basic level, the January 2003 (FW800) MDD Board/ROM/Firmware is what is incompatible with 9. If you are actually looking to overcome these, A. Good for You! and B. Due to the similarities with the previous model, I'm guessing it is well within the realm of possible.
If you merely want Jan '03 MDD speed in an already compatible '02 MDD or June '03 MDD then just get get one of the Dual 1.42GHz CPUs used in the Jan '03 and pop it in. You'd have the best of both worlds.
As far as I know, the CPUs are compatible across the entire MDD line.
In regards to the original '02 MDD that shipped with an 867 G4 and 133 Bus. If you put a faster CPU in it, will it automatically jump to the 167 bus, or is that an exclusive feature of the '02 MDD boards that shipped with a 1GHz or better? (AKA, is there any REAL difference between the slower models that run at 867/133 and the faster ones that run at 1GHz/167 other than the different CPU card?)(AKA, if you take a June '03 MDD that shipped with a 1.25/167 and pop an 867 in it, will it step down to 133?)
Edit - Relevant: viewtopic.php?f=13&t=17867
At the most basic level, the January 2003 (FW800) MDD Board/ROM/Firmware is what is incompatible with 9. If you are actually looking to overcome these, A. Good for You! and B. Due to the similarities with the previous model, I'm guessing it is well within the realm of possible.
If you merely want Jan '03 MDD speed in an already compatible '02 MDD or June '03 MDD then just get get one of the Dual 1.42GHz CPUs used in the Jan '03 and pop it in. You'd have the best of both worlds.
As far as I know, the CPUs are compatible across the entire MDD line.
In regards to the original '02 MDD that shipped with an 867 G4 and 133 Bus. If you put a faster CPU in it, will it automatically jump to the 167 bus, or is that an exclusive feature of the '02 MDD boards that shipped with a 1GHz or better? (AKA, is there any REAL difference between the slower models that run at 867/133 and the faster ones that run at 1GHz/167 other than the different CPU card?)(AKA, if you take a June '03 MDD that shipped with a 1.25/167 and pop an 867 in it, will it step down to 133?)
Edit - Relevant: viewtopic.php?f=13&t=17867
Here’s how it works with the MDD. The motherboard bus speed is controlled by a resistor setting on the motherboard. With a 133mhz motherboards it's possible some components may be pushed a little when you up the bus speed. I’ve only personally upped the bus speed on a couple of MDD motherboards. With them there was no difficulty with the speedup. Someone i know has been using a speeded up motherboard for around 8 years if I remember correctly.
As to CPU speed, a resistor setting on the processor card governs it’s speed. That resistor setting has the cpu running at so many times the bus speed. For example 1.25 ghz cpu on a 167mhz bus would be set to 7.5 times the bus speed. If you were to move that processor card over to a MDD with a 133mhz bus then that cpu would then be running at 1ghz. However if you changed the resistor setting to 9.5 times then it would run at a little over 1.25ghz on the 133mhz bus. Changing those resistor setting is also how you do overclocking on the MDD.
Another factor in moving to a faster motherboard is RAM. Sometimes MDDs with slow bus speeds contained slower RAM. But RAM is pretty cheap nowadays if you need it.
As to CPU speed, a resistor setting on the processor card governs it’s speed. That resistor setting has the cpu running at so many times the bus speed. For example 1.25 ghz cpu on a 167mhz bus would be set to 7.5 times the bus speed. If you were to move that processor card over to a MDD with a 133mhz bus then that cpu would then be running at 1ghz. However if you changed the resistor setting to 9.5 times then it would run at a little over 1.25ghz on the 133mhz bus. Changing those resistor setting is also how you do overclocking on the MDD.
Another factor in moving to a faster motherboard is RAM. Sometimes MDDs with slow bus speeds contained slower RAM. But RAM is pretty cheap nowadays if you need it.
As it is, I bought the complete motherboard/CPU/heatsink/RAM package from a guy who had the MDD June 2003 1x 1.25 Ghz machine. Basically he's parted his machine and I'm getting its core, so there shouldn't be any conflicts at all. Just a cleaning check and maybe some new thermal paste. Otherwise GTG.
And if for some reason I want to return my machine to stock, I simply put the original mobo/CPU/RAM etc. back into it.
And if for some reason I want to return my machine to stock, I simply put the original mobo/CPU/RAM etc. back into it.
Thank you waynestewart for the excellent clarification. Perhaps you are willing to add the relevant bits to the sitckied G4 cpu swap thread?
That's some good info waynestewart.
)
The built for OS 9 thing has a few holes...if the other board supports 9, it was built for it. I hate to think what their reply to installing Linux may have been! Never having heard of it is just too easy to make fun of so I'll just pass on it.
I think the replacement board should be just the ticket. You said you planned on stocking spare parts, so a few power supplies should keep you running for a long time I'd think. I know people who have been running them for a long time with no issue. I wouldn't be surprised if someone here has a genius solution to fixing or replacing them with another PSU!
That one made me laugh the most. You were just talking about a motherboard swap, right? If so that's only maybe true if you take breaks to shuffle around the carpet in your socks a few times while doing it. :scrambled:
) The built for OS 9 thing has a few holes...if the other board supports 9, it was built for it. I hate to think what their reply to installing Linux may have been! Never having heard of it is just too easy to make fun of so I'll just pass on it.
I think the replacement board should be just the ticket. You said you planned on stocking spare parts, so a few power supplies should keep you running for a long time I'd think. I know people who have been running them for a long time with no issue. I wouldn't be surprised if someone here has a genius solution to fixing or replacing them with another PSU!
Yes, wanynestewart, I do appreciate the information. I hope I didn't come across as brusque.
The guy I'm getting the board from on eBay is turning out to be quite the nice guy. He's done the exact conversion that I'm doing, and he's sending along the I/O panel (with no FW800 port) and some extra PCI slot covers (I'm missing some) for no extra charge.
Sweet!
The guy I'm getting the board from on eBay is turning out to be quite the nice guy. He's done the exact conversion that I'm doing, and he's sending along the I/O panel (with no FW800 port) and some extra PCI slot covers (I'm missing some) for no extra charge.
Sweet!
A link to the search page but not to the thread in question?
Is this a teacher-raps-the-student's-knuckles moment?
Is this a teacher-raps-the-student's-knuckles moment?
Okay, so a status update.
I acquired from eBay an MDD June 2003 single 1.25 Ghz board, CPU, heatsink, 2GB RAM matched combo. When the seller heard what I was doing, he through in the matching I/O panel (without the FW 800 port) for free.
For comparison, here's a photo of the parts that came in my FW800 machine after I pulled them. Note the additional port for the FW800 and also the different heatsink.
The machine I purchased was a single processor 1 Ghz FW800. The lowend model. It was DUSTY! And man did all that dust stink of cigarette smoke!
First thing I did was pull everything out and go to town with the high-powered vac and the canned air.
Then I put in the new parts and put everything back together. (For extra details on the heatsink installation process, see this thread in the lounge.)
I acquired from eBay an MDD June 2003 single 1.25 Ghz board, CPU, heatsink, 2GB RAM matched combo. When the seller heard what I was doing, he through in the matching I/O panel (without the FW 800 port) for free.
For comparison, here's a photo of the parts that came in my FW800 machine after I pulled them. Note the additional port for the FW800 and also the different heatsink.
The machine I purchased was a single processor 1 Ghz FW800. The lowend model. It was DUSTY! And man did all that dust stink of cigarette smoke!
First thing I did was pull everything out and go to town with the high-powered vac and the canned air.
Then I put in the new parts and put everything back together. (For extra details on the heatsink installation process, see this thread in the lounge.)
Then, the moment of truth. Would it all work?
BONG! It did! Whoopee!
It booted into Leopard, and I installed a CPU temp utility to make sure the heatsink and grease were functioning properly. When I could see that they were, I pulled out the MDD 2003 CDs I acquired from an obliging friend, dropped in the OS 9 disk, and went to work.
Hmmm. The read me says that the OS9 package on the disk supports Classic only and will not make a bootable system folder. Really?
That doesn't seem right.
Well, I tried of course.
So, the next step is to ascertain exactly which machine the disks I have came with originally. My fear is that they were originally FW800 disks. I have to check with my friend to see. If they ARE June 2003 MDD disks, then I'm curious because they clearly don't support an OS9 boot (regardless of hardware), and the June 2003 MDD was supposed to be OS9 bootable.
If I do have the right disks, my next step will be to try to get ahold of a set of original MDD disks and also to try my 700Mhz eMac disks (I'm going to try that first). If neither of THOSE options work, I'll try to find an ATI eMac set.
I'll keep you posted!
Thoughts? Comments? Advice?
BONG! It did! Whoopee!
It booted into Leopard, and I installed a CPU temp utility to make sure the heatsink and grease were functioning properly. When I could see that they were, I pulled out the MDD 2003 CDs I acquired from an obliging friend, dropped in the OS 9 disk, and went to work.
Hmmm. The read me says that the OS9 package on the disk supports Classic only and will not make a bootable system folder. Really?
That doesn't seem right.
Well, I tried of course.
So, the next step is to ascertain exactly which machine the disks I have came with originally. My fear is that they were originally FW800 disks. I have to check with my friend to see. If they ARE June 2003 MDD disks, then I'm curious because they clearly don't support an OS9 boot (regardless of hardware), and the June 2003 MDD was supposed to be OS9 bootable.
If I do have the right disks, my next step will be to try to get ahold of a set of original MDD disks and also to try my 700Mhz eMac disks (I'm going to try that first). If neither of THOSE options work, I'll try to find an ATI eMac set.
I'll keep you posted!
Thoughts? Comments? Advice?
As you have a running OS X system, you can try the NetBoot for OS9 image from Apple. It contains 9.2.2 System Folders in a few languages. You can use Pacifist to extract the NetBoot HD.img from the NetBoot.pkg file. Mount the disk image, copy the System Folder to your hard disk and remove the Multi-User Prefs file from it's Preferences folder (otherwise you'll get a login prompt when you boot into OS 9.
I believe this will help. Trag gets credit for finding this and posting it in the Trading Post.
I totally spaced on the fact that the I/O panel would be a little different due to the lack of FW800. D'oh! Good thing the eBay seller you bought from had been down that road before and hooked you up with extra parts for free. That's awesome.
Also I believe you said you've called Apple asking for a disc and got denied. Since I've heard stories in the past of them doing it you might want to try calling again (maybe a few times? } ) if you feel inspired enough. Having worked in a call center doing Customer Service (although for a cell phone company that rhymed with E-Mobile) I can personally attest that sometimes the answer to your request is dependent on the rep, not the company or policy...
Congratulations on being one step closer to your goal. Good luck on the quest for the proper OS 9 disc!
I totally spaced on the fact that the I/O panel would be a little different due to the lack of FW800. D'oh! Good thing the eBay seller you bought from had been down that road before and hooked you up with extra parts for free. That's awesome.
Also I believe you said you've called Apple asking for a disc and got denied. Since I've heard stories in the past of them doing it you might want to try calling again (maybe a few times? }
) if you feel inspired enough. Having worked in a call center doing Customer Service (although for a cell phone company that rhymed with E-Mobile) I can personally attest that sometimes the answer to your request is dependent on the rep, not the company or policy...Congratulations on being one step closer to your goal. Good luck on the quest for the proper OS 9 disc!
Hang on, just had a thought.
The question mark has to be a good sign, right? It means a classic ROM is operative on the system.
When I tried using my eMac install disks on the FW800, I got a System 9.2.2 folder choice in the Startup Disk options, but when I actually restarted that way, I didn't get a question mark. It just hung and then restarted in X.
The question mark has to be a good sign, right? It means a classic ROM is operative on the system.
When I tried using my eMac install disks on the FW800, I got a System 9.2.2 folder choice in the Startup Disk options, but when I actually restarted that way, I didn't get a question mark. It just hung and then restarted in X.
Progress! After last night's failure, I called to mind this oft-repeated basic information from lowendmac.com (taken in this case from their Wallstreet PDQ page. See the last paragraph in the overview section).
This time, no question mark!
It started booting into OS9, and then crashed halfway through.
So, one issue resolved. Now to try the other install disk options I have available.
I went back, partitioned my boot disk with a 1GB partition for MacOS 9 and then reinstalled everything using the same install disks.
This time, no question mark!
It started booting into OS9, and then crashed halfway through.
So, one issue resolved. Now to try the other install disk options I have available.
Try booting with all extensions off - hold down the [shift] key while booting
yeah didn't someone say this would happen if you didn't have the correct video driver?
Gah! Booting with extensions off!? Duh!
I am SO out of practice with pre-OS X troubleshooting. Back in the day, the extensions-off reboot was as natural as breathing.
I'll try it after I reinstall the OS 9 software. I wiped the partition in anticipation of trying something else.
In other news, I've been running Apple Hardware Test 1.2.6, which I believe is the disk for the original MDDs.
Everything passes fine except my memory.
The FW800 board came with two 256mb sticks, a PC2100 stick which is incompatible with the new, 167mhz board, and a PC2600 stick.
The MDD board came with four 512mb sticks, all PC2700.
Using the MDD board, the FW800 RAM behaves as expected. I get a fail test on the PC2100 stick, and the PC2600 stick passes and functions fine.
But when I install the PC2700 RAM, Apple Hardware Test won't even boot successfully. I get the error screen below. I've tried with one stick, two sticks, and four sticks, and I get the same grey screen every time. Of course, running the computer in Panther, Tiger, and Leopard, I haven't noticed any problems at all. Only when trying to boot AHT 1.2.6.
I haven't spent too much time swapping sticks around because the machine came stock with 256MB, and I've got a working 256MB stick to play with until I get OS9 running, which is the immediate goal. But eventually, I'm going to want a problem-free install of max RAM as well.
I am SO out of practice with pre-OS X troubleshooting. Back in the day, the extensions-off reboot was as natural as breathing.
I'll try it after I reinstall the OS 9 software. I wiped the partition in anticipation of trying something else.
In other news, I've been running Apple Hardware Test 1.2.6, which I believe is the disk for the original MDDs.
Everything passes fine except my memory.
The FW800 board came with two 256mb sticks, a PC2100 stick which is incompatible with the new, 167mhz board, and a PC2600 stick.
The MDD board came with four 512mb sticks, all PC2700.
Using the MDD board, the FW800 RAM behaves as expected. I get a fail test on the PC2100 stick, and the PC2600 stick passes and functions fine.
But when I install the PC2700 RAM, Apple Hardware Test won't even boot successfully. I get the error screen below. I've tried with one stick, two sticks, and four sticks, and I get the same grey screen every time. Of course, running the computer in Panther, Tiger, and Leopard, I haven't noticed any problems at all. Only when trying to boot AHT 1.2.6.
I haven't spent too much time swapping sticks around because the machine came stock with 256MB, and I've got a working 256MB stick to play with until I get OS9 running, which is the immediate goal. But eventually, I'm going to want a problem-free install of max RAM as well.
Okay, so I just got taken to beginner school by the mod. Good call, Bunsen. Turning off extensions on startup allowed the boot to complete.
We are OS 9 live!
Couple of notes:
1) I'm running a MDD June 2003 single 1.25Ghz CPU/board combo inside what was originally a FW800 box. I'm using one 256MB stick of PC2600 RAM that was on the FW800 board.
2) I booted from my retail Tiger install disk, wiped and partitioned the drive, and installed Tiger.
3) I used the MDD OS9 disk to install an OS9 system folder. According to the documentation on that disk, the OS9 install is for Classic support only under OSX and will not support booting in OS9. But it does.
4) It crashes on startup unless extensions are off.
So all that's left is to find the extensions conflict.
Video-driver conflict has been suggested. I will look into that possibility and keep you all posted.
ok keep it commin… my dad is bringin me my mdd 1.25 dp tonight.
I've been remoting into it, but now ill have it in my grubby little hands.
ill try my ibook 9.22 disk tonight!
I've been remoting into it, but now ill have it in my grubby little hands.
ill try my ibook 9.22 disk tonight!
If you've ever used Ex Post Facto to install a not-officially-supported version of OS X on a machine, you know how I feel right now.
If you're looking for an OS 9 box, there definitely is merit to getting a machine that can boot from a retail OS 9.
They're much more common than whatever machine-specific install disk you need to make your machine behave properly.
If you're looking for an OS 9 box, there definitely is merit to getting a machine that can boot from a retail OS 9.
They're much more common than whatever machine-specific install disk you need to make your machine behave properly.
I tried the "call Applecare" last year. My very first call, I got someone who said "sure, I just need the serial number so I can figure out which model you have." (And it was going to be $10 shipping *PER DISC* in the set.) Sadly, I didn't have the serial number on me.
I called four more times over the next week, and never got anyone who knew anything about that. I tried many different departments, education, business, consumer. On one call, I was transferred around four times. The best answer I got later was "use Sheepshaver."
I called four more times over the next week, and never got anyone who knew anything about that. I tried many different departments, education, business, consumer. On one call, I was transferred around four times. The best answer I got later was "use Sheepshaver."
Okay, so I'm able to boot with all extensions on. I switched out the PC2700 RAM that was causing AHT to failboot, and put in the one 256MB PC2600 stick that passed AHT. So I'm at stock RAM levels right now, but, whatever.
After I did that I turned off all the extensions and worked up to a maximum successful set . . . which turned out to be all of them. I should have tried booting again with extensions after the RAM switch. Oh well. It works now anyways.
The problem is, the system folder I got from the install CD is gutted. No AppleTalk control panel. No Mouse control panel. No File Sharing extension. That's for starters, as they're what I need right now.
So, I'm in the process of cataloging everything (all control panels, extensions, etc.) in the system folder including version numbers.
I'm then going to catalog the system folder in my Wallstreet PDQ (a 9.2.2 International update downloaded from Apple and added to a 9.1 UK retail install).
I will see what the differences are an start adding things to the gutted system folder on my MDD and see what works and what crashes.
I will then take this hybridized, bastard, Borgified system folder, and *archive it*. I will then test it for a month or two using lots of software.
If everything works, I'll have me a new, custom OS 9.2.2 install for 2003 MDD machines.
I'll keep you all posted.
Update: File Sharing is live on the MDD-Borg, and it and the Wallstreet are now talking to one another.
After I did that I turned off all the extensions and worked up to a maximum successful set . . . which turned out to be all of them. I should have tried booting again with extensions after the RAM switch. Oh well. It works now anyways.
The problem is, the system folder I got from the install CD is gutted. No AppleTalk control panel. No Mouse control panel. No File Sharing extension. That's for starters, as they're what I need right now.
So, I'm in the process of cataloging everything (all control panels, extensions, etc.) in the system folder including version numbers.
I'm then going to catalog the system folder in my Wallstreet PDQ (a 9.2.2 International update downloaded from Apple and added to a 9.1 UK retail install).
I will see what the differences are an start adding things to the gutted system folder on my MDD and see what works and what crashes.
I will then take this hybridized, bastard, Borgified system folder, and *archive it*. I will then test it for a month or two using lots of software.
If everything works, I'll have me a new, custom OS 9.2.2 install for 2003 MDD machines.
I'll keep you all posted.
Update: File Sharing is live on the MDD-Borg, and it and the Wallstreet are now talking to one another.
interesting… did you have to delete that ATI accelerator extension to get it to boot with extensions on?
This whole experience has gotten me thinking about how useful it would be to have an online wiki for the various versions and pieces of System 9.x.
It would list:
All the various versions of OS 9.x and when and how they were released.
Photos of CDs with part numbers, etc.
Box scans with system requirements, etc.
And, under each version of OS 9.x.x it would give a complete breakdown of what was in the system folder, control panels, extensions, etc. with version numbers.
And, it would have detailed information on important system components (like control panels and extensions). When they were first released, what they did, and which versions were used in which systems.
It would also have discussions of MacOS 9 compatibility with various software and of which machines were compatible with which versions and of how the OS was implemented differently between Old World and New World machines.
What a fantastically useful project that would be.
It would list:
All the various versions of OS 9.x and when and how they were released.
Photos of CDs with part numbers, etc.
Box scans with system requirements, etc.
And, under each version of OS 9.x.x it would give a complete breakdown of what was in the system folder, control panels, extensions, etc. with version numbers.
And, it would have detailed information on important system components (like control panels and extensions). When they were first released, what they did, and which versions were used in which systems.
It would also have discussions of MacOS 9 compatibility with various software and of which machines were compatible with which versions and of how the OS was implemented differently between Old World and New World machines.
What a fantastically useful project that would be.
To my knowledge, there was no ATI Accelerator extension, although I'm not looking at it ATM. I didn't have to turn off or disable any extensions to get it to work.
Well, another incompatibility with OS 9 pops up.
It won't go to sleep properly. It goes to sleep, but the fans keep running (and as we all know, MDD fans are not quiet). It says there's a piece of hardware installed that's not compatible with sleep, and checking the system profiler, it appears to be a PCI card, of which there are none installed.
Could it be the graphics card itself? It's the GeForce4 MX, I think. It's whatever was the installed card on my FW800 board, and that being the lowend model, I think that's the one. I'll check later to be sure.
Any other ideas?
It won't go to sleep properly. It goes to sleep, but the fans keep running (and as we all know, MDD fans are not quiet). It says there's a piece of hardware installed that's not compatible with sleep, and checking the system profiler, it appears to be a PCI card, of which there are none installed.
Could it be the graphics card itself? It's the GeForce4 MX, I think. It's whatever was the installed card on my FW800 board, and that being the lowend model, I think that's the one. I'll check later to be sure.
Any other ideas?
Could also be a USB device, eg. mouse/keyboard/printer not causing it to sleep
The AGP card always appears as a "PCI" card in the Profiler. As long as the video card is in the AGP slot, it should be able to sleep fine. Byrd is right; check USB devices.
Hi,
Hmm... this sounds familiar.
While it's possible that a USB device could cause it not to sleep, in my experience with an Nvidia GeForce 4MX on my Quicksilver, it won't sleep unless the proper drivers are in place.
When you go to the Monitors control panel, does it list various resolutions for your display, or only one?
If only one, the missing drivers are the problem. The OS 9.2.2 you installed may be working simply because it didn't have the drivers included in the package (I've found that images of OS 9.2.2 which are intended solely for use in Classic mode, it doesn't include much in the way of display drivers (presumably because they're not necessary in Classic mode)); OS 9.2.2 will still work just fine without them, of course (although I've found that (re)drawing of UI elements is slow at higher resolutions (it seems to default to the monitor's native resolution when there's no drivers)).
I think you can download the Nvidia drivers from Other World Computing (filename is nvidia3.1.sit, I think).
I'm glad it's working otherwise, though! Good job!!
c
Hmm... this sounds familiar.
While it's possible that a USB device could cause it not to sleep, in my experience with an Nvidia GeForce 4MX on my Quicksilver, it won't sleep unless the proper drivers are in place.
When you go to the Monitors control panel, does it list various resolutions for your display, or only one?
If only one, the missing drivers are the problem. The OS 9.2.2 you installed may be working simply because it didn't have the drivers included in the package (I've found that images of OS 9.2.2 which are intended solely for use in Classic mode, it doesn't include much in the way of display drivers (presumably because they're not necessary in Classic mode)); OS 9.2.2 will still work just fine without them, of course (although I've found that (re)drawing of UI elements is slow at higher resolutions (it seems to default to the monitor's native resolution when there's no drivers)).
I think you can download the Nvidia drivers from Other World Computing (filename is nvidia3.1.sit, I think).
I'm glad it's working otherwise, though! Good job!!
c
If I am not mistaken, if you do NOT have one of the original MDD video cards installed, OS 9 will go wonky. Mine did with my 256MB nVidia FX5200. Mine would only display at 640x480? (I can't remember) and 256 colors. I put back in the original Radeon 9000 Pro, and it was fine.
EDIT - Wait... didn't the MDD come with the GeForce 4MX as an option?
EDIT - Wait... didn't the MDD come with the GeForce 4MX as an option?
Ha! CC_333 wins the prize! Monitors shows only 1024x768 as an option, so even if it's not the sleep problem, I definitely need a driver update.
I know USB devices can cause the problem, in particular my thumb drive, but I've already dealt with that one, so I'm pretty sure it's the video card.
Update: The driver in question is called the Apple NVIDIA Driver and it was published by Apple. Apple NVIDIA Driver 3.0 v1.1 (Apr, 2002) can still be had from Apple's website.
http://support.apple.com/kb/DL1150
Update 2: The installer won't run on my machine, however.
I know USB devices can cause the problem, in particular my thumb drive, but I've already dealt with that one, so I'm pretty sure it's the video card.
Update: The driver in question is called the Apple NVIDIA Driver and it was published by Apple. Apple NVIDIA Driver 3.0 v1.1 (Apr, 2002) can still be had from Apple's website.
http://support.apple.com/kb/DL1150
Update 2: The installer won't run on my machine, however.
I thought so! The symptoms you were describing seemed very familiar.
That's because you need version 3.5 of the drivers. 3.0 v1.1 (Apr, 2002) is meant to update older versions of OS 9 drivers on older models of computer using older models of Nvidia cards. The card from the MDD (particularly the 2003 model) needs version 3.5 or else it won't work. I speak from experience, because I spent hours trying to find those drivers when I got that card (and it was actually for a Sawtooth model, not Quicksilver. My mistake. However, the information and experience still apply.)
There's actually a mention of a similar problem (with a link to the drivers) on this forum over here.
c
The Netboot image I mentioned on the previous page has 3.5.x nvidia drivers. You would probably have had the system up and running in one go if you'd used that.
But then you'd have missed out on the journey
But then you'd have missed out on the journey
Just to be technical, that's because AGP *IS* PCI, just with some extensions and a faster-pumped bus.
All of you are being super helpful. I couldn't ask for a better community.
The 3.5 drivers dropped into the system folder and were recognized as extensions and placed accordingly. They do not cause a crash.
They also don't do any good. Still limited to 1024x768 in the Monitors control panel, still got fans running during sleep, still have a message in the system profiler that I have a PCI card incompatible with low-power mode. I also verified that it is a GeForce4 MX.
Trying the NetBoot now.
Update: After I add Disk Copy to the OS 9 "install" currently on the MDD.
Update 2: NetBoot 9 System folder = flashing question mark. I'll try a couple different MacOS ROM files and see if any of them make a difference.
The 3.5 drivers dropped into the system folder and were recognized as extensions and placed accordingly. They do not cause a crash.
They also don't do any good. Still limited to 1024x768 in the Monitors control panel, still got fans running during sleep, still have a message in the system profiler that I have a PCI card incompatible with low-power mode. I also verified that it is a GeForce4 MX.
Trying the NetBoot now.
Update: After I add Disk Copy to the OS 9 "install" currently on the MDD.
Update 2: NetBoot 9 System folder = flashing question mark. I'll try a couple different MacOS ROM files and see if any of them make a difference.
Hmm the Mac OS ROM is only 9.6.1. I must have been confusing it with the eMac disc as I could have sworn it was 10.2.x. Maybe drop in a newer one.
Yeah, I actually dropped in the new ROM before I tried it the first time. I'll keep fiddling, but unless I can get my hand on better disks, I'm about to call this a failed experiment.
The best disc is probably the eMac one trag posted the link to previously. 9.2.2, ROM 10.1.1, ATI and nVidia drivers (3.5.2 for the latter). Unless you can get the actual restore disc set for a June 2003 MDD.
Okay, so I played around some more and got the NetBoot image to work. Same deal in the monitors control panel, 1024x768 only. I did test my copy of Syndicate, and it runs at 640x480 in the middle of the screen with black bars all around (although the menu bar stays at the top where it belongs). This is the exact same performance I get on my 700Mhz eMac running on a clean install from its original disks.
This is actually just the performance I want, graphics-wise. So since color depth is adjustable to 256 colors and the software will run low-res programs properly, I may be fine.
Still have the sleep problem, though, even with the NetBoot system folder. So . . .
The way I see it, I can make this work and continue playing around and collating system folders to get a "best" build.
My other options are:
1) find an inexpensive Quicksilver or equivalent that I can run from a retail version of 9.1 or 9.2.1. This solution is attractive for several reasons.
2) find a set of original June 2003 MDD disks. This also is attractive, but perhaps harder to accomplish. Also not guaranteed to do what I want since my machine isn't, after all, a pure June 2003 MDD.
3) Try getting an older graphics card like a GeFrorce2 and see if that solves the sleep problem. An interesting experiment, but not as desirable a solution as the other two.
I'm definitely going to look into beefing up my records in regards to what exactly went into the various System 9 builds. This is information from which we could all benefit. More on that later.
And I'll keep you all posted on this project. Software tests coming next week.
This is actually just the performance I want, graphics-wise. So since color depth is adjustable to 256 colors and the software will run low-res programs properly, I may be fine.
Still have the sleep problem, though, even with the NetBoot system folder. So . . .
The way I see it, I can make this work and continue playing around and collating system folders to get a "best" build.
My other options are:
1) find an inexpensive Quicksilver or equivalent that I can run from a retail version of 9.1 or 9.2.1. This solution is attractive for several reasons.
2) find a set of original June 2003 MDD disks. This also is attractive, but perhaps harder to accomplish. Also not guaranteed to do what I want since my machine isn't, after all, a pure June 2003 MDD.
3) Try getting an older graphics card like a GeFrorce2 and see if that solves the sleep problem. An interesting experiment, but not as desirable a solution as the other two.
I'm definitely going to look into beefing up my records in regards to what exactly went into the various System 9 builds. This is information from which we could all benefit. More on that later.
And I'll keep you all posted on this project. Software tests coming next week.
True, but it seems more like Apple just wanted to gloss over the differences between slots rather than be pedantic about the underlying bus protocol.
http://www.dvwarehouse.com/Apple-eMac-System-Install-Disk-10.2.4-603-2803-p-37448.html
oh here was that link to the 15 dollar emac cd, they are talking about.
i bought one.
oh here was that link to the 15 dollar emac cd, they are talking about.
i bought one.
Software testing update:
Oni
MDD 1.25Ghz SP G4
OS 9.2.2: Ran installer. App started, opening cutscenes played. When it cut to the main menu, all I had was a black screen. Music played, but had to force quit. Couldn't see the cursor after the force quit, and had to randomly click around the screen to hit the quit button. Could not play.
OS 10.4 Tiger: App runs just fine in classic mode. No opening cutscenes, but menu shows up full-screen, and the game runs extremely smoothly with maxed-out graphics settings. (1024x768, 32-bit color). Appears to be a bug when coordinating keyboard and mouse movement that leaves me running in a straight line. Also got a hard crash after about ten minutes of playing.
Wallstreet PDQ 300Mhz G3
OS 9.2.2: Ran installer. App refused to launch. OpenGL error. Couldn't get the hardware acceleration to work. I assume it's a problem with the RageProLT.
eMac 700Mhz G4
OS 9.2.2: Had trouble getting the CD mount, and when I did, the installer crashed. I think it may be residual problems from the time sitting outside and the soaking the CD drive received. Will try installing over AppleTalk and report back.
- - - - - - - -
More to come.
Also, in use, the MDD really does feel like a machine designed for OSX. In OSX, I have the ability to adjust both color depth and resolution on the monitor. In OS 9, I can only adjust color depth. In OSX, the machine sleeps properly. In OS 9, the fan never stops. In OSX, the CD eject button on the keyboard works. In OS9, it doesn't. Some of these issues are probably fixable. But in OSX, they just work.
But at this point, I'm curious to see how high-end OS 9 apps like Oni perform on slower G4 machines like the 700Mhz eMac. If performance is good enough, I would probably recommend that a person looking for an OS 9 box choose something designed and optimized for OS9. One clue would be a machine with a button on the CD door to open the drive. That would mean anything pre-Quicksilver.
Thoughts?
Oni
MDD 1.25Ghz SP G4
OS 9.2.2: Ran installer. App started, opening cutscenes played. When it cut to the main menu, all I had was a black screen. Music played, but had to force quit. Couldn't see the cursor after the force quit, and had to randomly click around the screen to hit the quit button. Could not play.
OS 10.4 Tiger: App runs just fine in classic mode. No opening cutscenes, but menu shows up full-screen, and the game runs extremely smoothly with maxed-out graphics settings. (1024x768, 32-bit color). Appears to be a bug when coordinating keyboard and mouse movement that leaves me running in a straight line. Also got a hard crash after about ten minutes of playing.
Wallstreet PDQ 300Mhz G3
OS 9.2.2: Ran installer. App refused to launch. OpenGL error. Couldn't get the hardware acceleration to work. I assume it's a problem with the RageProLT.
eMac 700Mhz G4
OS 9.2.2: Had trouble getting the CD mount, and when I did, the installer crashed. I think it may be residual problems from the time sitting outside and the soaking the CD drive received. Will try installing over AppleTalk and report back.
- - - - - - - -
More to come.
Also, in use, the MDD really does feel like a machine designed for OSX. In OSX, I have the ability to adjust both color depth and resolution on the monitor. In OS 9, I can only adjust color depth. In OSX, the machine sleeps properly. In OS 9, the fan never stops. In OSX, the CD eject button on the keyboard works. In OS9, it doesn't. Some of these issues are probably fixable. But in OSX, they just work.
But at this point, I'm curious to see how high-end OS 9 apps like Oni perform on slower G4 machines like the 700Mhz eMac. If performance is good enough, I would probably recommend that a person looking for an OS 9 box choose something designed and optimized for OS9. One clue would be a machine with a button on the CD door to open the drive. That would mean anything pre-Quicksilver.
Thoughts?
Oni runs pretty well on my 7300 with 500MHz G3 and Rage Orion.