Thread
Powerbooks & System Enablers
When it comes to Powerbooks and System Enablers, what exactly does the System Enabler do? If I put a Powerbook 550c processor into a 540c, would I need to run the 550c enabler since the ROM is from the 550c now or the 540c since that is what makes up the rest of the machine?
I was passing through the computer section of a department store the other day (and was pleasantly surprised to see that they've reintroduced Macs - last time I saw them in there was around '95!) Anyway, I gave Vista a go. Where's the big "wow"? I use XP at work due to necessity and so I'm quite familiar with Windows, but I couldn't detect any real difference between XP and Vista, except for the eye candy. The eye candy makes it rather like a turd designed by Rembrandt. There's still no logical filing system (e.g. the hard disk's directory is still full of random nonsensical folders instead of being logically organised like on the mac), the whole system still runs off the start menu (honestly, they call it Windows yet you use the start menu 90% of the time, thereby avoiding the windows). The only good new features were the ones they ripped off the Mac - how DO they get away with as blatant a rip-off as their dashboard "tribute", anyway? Where did that extra half-gig (or whatever) of RAM that Vista requires go to, then? 
A system enabler contains resources for a specific system to run a particular version of MacOS that was designed prior to the hardware being released. Since it isn't documented anywhere(*), it likely contains the following:
-A memory map of the system being booted
-Drivers for any special hardware like audio, video, system chipset, etc.
*It surprises me that after all these years, nobody has disasembled and done a low-level analysis of the Classic MacOS system "kernel", ROM, and system enablers. To this day, articles about the OS say the boot process is shroulded in mystery and that pre-Open Firmware Macs can only boot MacOS before kick starting another OS.
-A memory map of the system being booted
-Drivers for any special hardware like audio, video, system chipset, etc.
*It surprises me that after all these years, nobody has disasembled and done a low-level analysis of the Classic MacOS system "kernel", ROM, and system enablers. To this day, articles about the OS say the boot process is shroulded in mystery and that pre-Open Firmware Macs can only boot MacOS before kick starting another OS.
NJRoadfan has it right on the nose.
But the 550c and the 540c should be similar enough to work on the same OS (according to the technical notes I seen). But System enablers were for System 7 and in 7.6.1 should have ended their use as Apple promised then "No More System Enablers" in System 7.6+. But from System 7.6.1 to OS 8. Thus OS 8 can boot from some 030 macs, most 040 macs and all of the PowerPC Macs of the time without enablers.
@NJRoadfan - All, at least all 68K, Macs start with their ROMs at $00000000 and then there is some electronics Voodoo to bit-flip the ROM's addresses in hardware to just above $40000000 or $80000000 (depending on system) and start the system from there. There's no actual moving of the ROM other than shifting its hardware address registers, and then it opens up memory at $00000000 and clears and counts the RAM from there. That has been some serious Apple Voodoo secret for the longest, but we think we can figure out how its done in hardware. In software its easy, in hardware it gets tricky.
But the 550c and the 540c should be similar enough to work on the same OS (according to the technical notes I seen). But System enablers were for System 7 and in 7.6.1 should have ended their use as Apple promised then "No More System Enablers" in System 7.6+. But from System 7.6.1 to OS 8. Thus OS 8 can boot from some 030 macs, most 040 macs and all of the PowerPC Macs of the time without enablers.
@NJRoadfan - All, at least all 68K, Macs start with their ROMs at $00000000 and then there is some electronics Voodoo to bit-flip the ROM's addresses in hardware to just above $40000000 or $80000000 (depending on system) and start the system from there. There's no actual moving of the ROM other than shifting its hardware address registers, and then it opens up memory at $00000000 and clears and counts the RAM from there. That has been some serious Apple Voodoo secret for the longest, but we think we can figure out how its done in hardware. In software its easy, in hardware it gets tricky.
The Start Menu gets to be a real PITA when you get lots of programs installed and clogging it up. That's the main advantage that the old Apple Menu had: You had to make a choice to put something in there. Most installers on Windows put things in there automatically.
Also, I loathe the Windows Registry with a passion. Storing all the essential systemwide settings in two files is a horrible idea. At least OS X stores each App's settings in its own file.
/me wishes to destroy the person who came up with and developed the Registry
_________________
PPC Macs:
Also, I loathe the Windows Registry with a passion. Storing all the essential systemwide settings in two files is a horrible idea. At least OS X stores each App's settings in its own file.
/me wishes to destroy the person who came up with and developed the Registry
_________________
PPC Macs:
- Power Macintosh G4
- B&W Power Macintosh G4
- Power Macintosh 6500/225
Okay, then it sounds like the 540c enabler will still be the one that needs to be used. The memory map should be the same for both systems since they have the same ROM sizes and they both accept the same RAM modules and have the same maximum RAM amounts.
I'll also have to run TattleTech on both the 540c processor and the 550c processor to get the ROM versions and sub-versions to see if they match. The Apple technical specifications list the ROM ID and Ver for the 550c, but strangely they are not listed for the 520, 520c, 540, nor the 540c.
Finding a copy of the installation media for the 550c is proving to be extremely difficult. I have had no luck thus far, and apparently that installer is the only one that contains the Powerbook 550c Enabler
I'll also have to run TattleTech on both the 540c processor and the 550c processor to get the ROM versions and sub-versions to see if they match. The Apple technical specifications list the ROM ID and Ver for the 550c, but strangely they are not listed for the 520, 520c, 540, nor the 540c.
Finding a copy of the installation media for the 550c is proving to be extremely difficult. I have had no luck thus far, and apparently that installer is the only one that contains the Powerbook 550c Enabler
I have definitive proof that a 550c processor will run on a 540c using the stock Powerbook 500 Series Enabler 1.02 that comes with any 540c.
Whether it's a virgin system or not, the file system is still confusing and technical. You'd think they could do something to make it a little more human. The Mac manages to keep its junk sorted out or at least hidden. Yeah, OS9 had quite a few hidden files - but that's the whole point, they were hidden! You're probably a lot more technical than I am, so the windows file system doesn't bother you as much, but for lay users like me, it's extremely intimidating - hence why they hide the program files folder and try to base everything around the start menu.
Anyway, I thought since they've added so much eye candy to the interface, an obvious complimentary step would have been to make the directories remotely human. Otherwise it's like getting tinted windows and adding a spoiler and a big stereo to your car, ignoring the fact that it's got no wheels.
You're probably a lot more technical than I am, so the windows file system doesn't bother you as much, but for lay users like me, it's extremely intimidating - hence why they hide the program files folder and try to base everything around the start menu.
Anyway, I thought since they've added so much eye candy to the interface, an obvious complimentary step would have been to make the directories remotely human. Otherwise it's like getting tinted windows and adding a spoiler and a big stereo to your car, ignoring the fact that it's got no wheels.
Personally I prefer for everything to be visible, as I like to be able to see exactly what is on the system and I am interested in how Windows etc actually work. That's why I get annoyed with MS when they try to hide stuff, and trying to "simplify" Windows by doing things like adding that stupid new-style control panel option where all the "advanced" options are hidden and all you can do is change your wallpaper and things like that, and that ridiculous Security Centre thing that goes "you don't seem to be running anti-virus software" - yes I know I'm not running AV software, stupid Windows, I would remember if I'd installed one! If I really wanted to dedicate 90% of my system's resources to running Norton I'd have done it wihtout needing you to tell me, Windows! Grrrr! Sorry, that's just me ranting :p
I'm not especially technical either - don't be intimidated by it all!
_________________
Main system: custom C2D 2.66GHz tower/4GB RAM/2600XT 512 MB/500GB HD/XP Pro x86+Vista Business x64
Main Mac: Beige G3 minitower (Sonnet G4 500MHz/640 MB DVD/USB/Radeon 32 MB/OS 9.2.2+10.4.11)
I'm not especially technical either - don't be intimidated by it all!
_________________
Main system: custom C2D 2.66GHz tower/4GB RAM/2600XT 512 MB/500GB HD/XP Pro x86+Vista Business x64
Main Mac: Beige G3 minitower (Sonnet G4 500MHz/640 MB DVD/USB/Radeon 32 MB/OS 9.2.2+10.4.11)
Oh yes, hiding the advanced stuff gives me the pip too. In OSX they hide the complete save dialogue boxes until you press this drop-down thing that gives you the full details. Who was the idiot who thought of that?!
And yeah, the way windows tries to do everything for you is extremely annoying. Almost as annoying as auto-updaters.
And yeah, the way windows tries to do everything for you is extremely annoying. Almost as annoying as auto-updaters.
Vista. Eww.
I'm sorry, but i'm not that great a fan of Vista. A couple of weeks ago one of my customers got me to go to her place to set up her brand new Dell Inspiron, with Vista Home Premium.
I'm sure that once its been out for a while and all, its going to be a great OS, but MS still has a long way to go. I don't really know how to put it best, but to me, Vista still feels like a beta product, it doesn't have that "finished" feel that XP does...it still feels that its all pretty and new and exciting and stuff, but that it can take a major nosedive if the slightest thing goes wrong. Sure, i know its not that bad, but don't count on me upgrading from XP just yet.
_________________
"I mean, how hard can it be?" - Jeremy Clarkson
The Infamous LCGuy - Now back with Amazing Working iMac Action!
I'm sorry, but i'm not that great a fan of Vista. A couple of weeks ago one of my customers got me to go to her place to set up her brand new Dell Inspiron, with Vista Home Premium.
I'm sure that once its been out for a while and all, its going to be a great OS, but MS still has a long way to go. I don't really know how to put it best, but to me, Vista still feels like a beta product, it doesn't have that "finished" feel that XP does...it still feels that its all pretty and new and exciting and stuff, but that it can take a major nosedive if the slightest thing goes wrong. Sure, i know its not that bad, but don't count on me upgrading from XP just yet.
_________________
"I mean, how hard can it be?" - Jeremy Clarkson
The Infamous LCGuy - Now back with Amazing Working iMac Action!
I've been playing around with like, RC1 under vmware. It slows everything down so much, but overall it's actually not too bad, it's just like Windows.
Of course, Licensing has gotten awful, so I think in the long run, it'll be XP/Corporate or Windows 2000 pro that I run on my PCs, but Vista looks okay, and in a few years, PCs will be fast enough that when taken care of properly, they can run quickly.
(My PIII/933 runs XP quickly enough, I actually want to try Vista on it.)
_________________
[Insert Cool Signature here!]
Of course, Licensing has gotten awful, so I think in the long run, it'll be XP/Corporate or Windows 2000 pro that I run on my PCs, but Vista looks okay, and in a few years, PCs will be fast enough that when taken care of properly, they can run quickly.
(My PIII/933 runs XP quickly enough, I actually want to try Vista on it.)
_________________
[Insert Cool Signature here!]
I liked the folder layout. Much more intuative.
Aero glass is good. Much better then Luna for XP or Classic. It's about time Windows had some built in bling.
I really want to like ReasyBoot. Unfortunately since my T41P is my primary machine (having displaced the Ti), I do not want a USB flash drive sticking out of the side of my laptop. Rumor has it that ReadyBoost does support 32-bit Cardbus (not PCMCIA which is only 16-bit). The trick is you need one of those 'high speed' compact flash cards. I got the cardbus adapter and am now searching e-bay for a high speed 1 or 2gb card. Then I'll give it shot. If to works great, if not, damn.
Overall it is reasonably fast. I am hoping for better drivers for my Thinkpad. Specifically for the power management, ATI FireGL T2 128 GPU and wifi. For some reason wifi is ridiculously slow under vista.
I do not like the Windows Sidebar.
Aero glass is good. Much better then Luna for XP or Classic. It's about time Windows had some built in bling.
I really want to like ReasyBoot. Unfortunately since my T41P is my primary machine (having displaced the Ti), I do not want a USB flash drive sticking out of the side of my laptop. Rumor has it that ReadyBoost does support 32-bit Cardbus (not PCMCIA which is only 16-bit). The trick is you need one of those 'high speed' compact flash cards. I got the cardbus adapter and am now searching e-bay for a high speed 1 or 2gb card. Then I'll give it shot. If to works great, if not, damn.
Overall it is reasonably fast. I am hoping for better drivers for my Thinkpad. Specifically for the power management, ATI FireGL T2 128 GPU and wifi. For some reason wifi is ridiculously slow under vista.
I do not like the Windows Sidebar.
What's ReadyBoost?
The Sidebar is a silly waste of space, if you ask me. Either it hogs the side of the display or it's inaccessible. And the tools in it are pretty useless. But then again, I feel about the same with respect to Dashboard.
Both are interesting ideas implemented poorly.
Peace,
Drew
_________________
Power to the PowerPC!
The Sidebar is a silly waste of space, if you ask me. Either it hogs the side of the display or it's inaccessible. And the tools in it are pretty useless. But then again, I feel about the same with respect to Dashboard.
Both are interesting ideas implemented poorly.
Peace,
Drew
_________________
Power to the PowerPC!