Thread
I'm thinking of downgrading the OS from 9.1 on my performa 6200 to OS 8.1........I'm just hoping someone can give me a small list of pros and Cons of each OS... Also, would mozilla run on 8.1? IE 5.1? Is OS 8.1 A LOT faster than 9.1? I got a 20gb HD 5400rpm, 48mb RAM, and it has a 75mhz 603 processor....Well thanks a bunch!
IE5 runs on pretty much any PPC OS I think, I've certainly seen it on 8.1 and I think it may even work on 7.6. Certain apps do need 9, although mostly only newer apps like Photoshop 7 that you probably won't be running on this machine anyway. iTunes won't work though - you'd have to tell us what apps you want to work on it. Some hardware eg video cards only have drivers for 8.6 or 9, though only newer cards like Radeons that you're probably not using in this Mac anyway. 9 has more advanced features eg multi-user startup, Sherlock, CD burning etc, whereas 8.1 is pretty barebones - 9 is of course the pinnacle of Classic as far as features go.
With 48 MB Ram and a 20 GB disk, I'd definitely stick with 9.1 though, maybe even try to go up to 9.2.2 which some say is slightly faster (but fiddly to install as it's not supported by Apple). 48 MB is plenty for OS 9, in my opinion. There's a lot more 68k code in 8.1 than 9, so the speed boost won't be as great as you might expect. Booting will be faster in 8.1, but 9 is pretty responsive on older machines with a reasonable amount of Ram once it's running
With 48 MB Ram and a 20 GB disk, I'd definitely stick with 9.1 though, maybe even try to go up to 9.2.2 which some say is slightly faster (but fiddly to install as it's not supported by Apple). 48 MB is plenty for OS 9, in my opinion. There's a lot more 68k code in 8.1 than 9, so the speed boost won't be as great as you might expect. Booting will be faster in 8.1, but 9 is pretty responsive on older machines with a reasonable amount of Ram once it's running
OS 8.1 runs great on one of my Beige G3s, 48MB of RAM is a little low to get the most out of OS 9.1 in my opinion. The 2 machines I have OS 9.x running on are my G3-300 MT with 512MB RAM (9.2.1) and my 8500 (G3-400, 700MB RAM).
And yes IE5 seems to run on just about any PPC OS, think I have it on a 7.6.1 setup but I am not 100% on that.
And yes IE5 seems to run on just about any PPC OS, think I have it on a 7.6.1 setup but I am not 100% on that.
personally 64 mb is the lowest you can go for os 9
even under 8.6 i had trouble with just 64 mb
even under 8.6 i had trouble with just 64 mb
OS 9 runs on 32 megs. It takes bloody ages to start up, but after that it's okay-ish.personally 64 mb is the lowest you can go for os 9 even under 8.6 i had trouble with just 64 mb
I wouldn't use it for anything productive on anything under 64 megs though. 96 is really nice.
I expect it will run on much less than that if you wanted it to. It's certainly fine with 40 MB on my 6100/60 - yes, it takes a little while to get going, but is fine once it's ready. Even Windows XP will run with no modifications on only 24 MB Ram (it BSoDs on startup with less than that, although someone did modify it so that it worked on something like 4 MB!).OS 9 runs on 32 megs.
it runs in 32 yeah but 8.5 also runs in 16 mb and so dows windows 98
but do you really want to use them like that ?
mouse click wait mouse click wait
especially on a 75 mhz monster like the performa 6200
i used win xp on 128 mb once i can tell you it was no pleasure ride the machine paused with everything i did
but do you really want to use them like that ?
mouse click wait mouse click wait
especially on a 75 mhz monster like the performa 6200
i used win xp on 128 mb once i can tell you it was no pleasure ride the machine paused with everything i did
I read somewhere that you can get Tiger running in as little as 96 megs, but it crawls. Some people are even having trouble keeping a productive flow going with 512megs. Power users are definitely going to need more than 512 when 10.5 comes out.
never tried that but i did run jaguar in 96 mb ram
it was passable
can thelp to think that we are getting spoiled though used to be a time when 64 or 128 mb ram was a lot
these days its pitiful 512 is considerd a minimum
it was passable
can thelp to think that we are getting spoiled though used to be a time when 64 or 128 mb ram was a lot
these days its pitiful 512 is considerd a minimum
Nobody will ever use more than 640k of RAM.never tried that but i did run jaguar in 96 mb ram it was passable
can thelp to think that we are getting spoiled though used to be a time when 64 or 128 mb ram was a lot
these days its pitiful 512 is considerd a minimum
-Bill Gates
Nobody will ever use more than 640mb of RAM.
-Bill Gates
-Bill Gates
lol
I would totally downgrade your machine to MacOS 8.1 if you want it to be as quick as possible. IE 5.1 will run as far back as 7.5.5.
going back to 7 is a bit too a drastic a downgrade
i think 8.6 would be a good choice though
i think 8.6 would be a good choice though
I would recommend 8.6 if your Mac can run it nicely. That being said, 7.6.1 isn't that bad. It's a lot leaner and uses less memory.going back to 7 is a bit too a drastic a downgradei think 8.6 would be a good choice though
but 7.6 is not easy to get
he live sin bolivia i think its easier for him to get 8.6 then 7.6
he live sin bolivia i think its easier for him to get 8.6 then 7.6
Quadraman was correct - it's 640kNobody will ever use more than 640mb of RAM.
-Bill Gates
while 7.6.x is harder to get, a lot of the software out there that had an 8.x requirement needs 8.5 minimum.
I'm personally one to recommend 7.6.1 as the best pre-g3 os due to its small (read: tiny) memory footprint of sub 8MB with virtual memory off on a full stock install without trimming extensions, etc. While having a system that small may seem pointless if you've got say 128mb or more ram, just imagine what you can do with 120mb ram with virtual memory completely off, and not slowing the system.
Ramdisk, perhaps?
anyhow... while 8 is argued to be a better system because it's ppc native, that doesn't mean 100% of everything you run and have installed is PPC native. iirc a number of Apple extensions and parts of 8.1+ are still written in 68k...
I'm personally one to recommend 7.6.1 as the best pre-g3 os due to its small (read: tiny) memory footprint of sub 8MB with virtual memory off on a full stock install without trimming extensions, etc. While having a system that small may seem pointless if you've got say 128mb or more ram, just imagine what you can do with 120mb ram with virtual memory completely off, and not slowing the system.
Ramdisk, perhaps?
anyhow... while 8 is argued to be a better system because it's ppc native, that doesn't mean 100% of everything you run and have installed is PPC native. iirc a number of Apple extensions and parts of 8.1+ are still written in 68k...
and i stil say that 8 is easier to get
7.6 is quite hard to locate and it wont be cheap
7.6 is quite hard to locate and it wont be cheap
There's images of it floating around on the 'net, so it's not difficult to find either. 7.6.1 is definitely the way to go if you're using 7, though I would only use 7 on a 68k. The only issue with 7.6 is that annoying bug in the installer where you have to do an Easy Install and then manually remove the bits you don't want afterwards.7.6 is quite hard to locate
How do you make a ramdisk?Ramdisk, perhaps?
i always prefer real apple pressed software over images who knows how clean those images are
Quadraman was correct - it's 640kNobody will ever use more than 640mb of RAM.
-Bill Gates
its a joke adjusted for current times
640 k turned in to 640 mb
That's "640k should be enough for everyone" (no 'forever') and he said it in the early 80's.Nobody will ever use more than 640k of RAM.never tried that but i did run jaguar in 96 mb ram it was passable
can thelp to think that we are getting spoiled though used to be a time when 64 or 128 mb ram was a lot
these days its pitiful 512 is considerd a minimum
-Bill Gates
edit - a bit of searching show that he claims to have actually never said that. there are some attributed quotes on wikiquote's article.
Ehh.. Less RAM, less OS feature development, less OS feature development, less hardware development. To keep the industry running you need to have both. That said, the modern OSen really could be trimmed a lot.
Rather than Mozilla, I would suggest WaMCom or iCab. IE 5, as others have suggested, is a possibility as well, but if you're used to Mozilla or prefer it, you may be happiest with WaMCom.
Owing to the unusual (and crippled) architecture of the PM 6200/6300 series, I've had the best luck with OS 8.6 (or 9.1 if you have the RAM, but I think 48 may be pushing it, depending on what and how many apps you want to run). Any version of System 7 on these machines is very unstable. OS 8.1 provides a lot of bug fixes and much more stability, but my experience has been that if you can push it all the way up to OS 8.6, you'll be a lot happier. Many of the previous posters are also correct regarding the PPC native code found in OS 8.5 and up. The PPC 603 processor, especially at 75 MHz, was a very slow and inefficient 68K emulator. You'll notice most Quadras will outpace the early 603 Power Macs running older, non-PPC native software.
My recommendation is downgrading OS 9.1 to OS 8.6. This will still let you support most applications that require OS 9.1 with the appropriate CarbonLib libraries, and has support for things like USB cards, if you have one in your Performa. With another model of Mac, my recommendation may be different, but I think you'd be happiest with this on your 6200.
Owing to the unusual (and crippled) architecture of the PM 6200/6300 series, I've had the best luck with OS 8.6 (or 9.1 if you have the RAM, but I think 48 may be pushing it, depending on what and how many apps you want to run). Any version of System 7 on these machines is very unstable. OS 8.1 provides a lot of bug fixes and much more stability, but my experience has been that if you can push it all the way up to OS 8.6, you'll be a lot happier. Many of the previous posters are also correct regarding the PPC native code found in OS 8.5 and up. The PPC 603 processor, especially at 75 MHz, was a very slow and inefficient 68K emulator. You'll notice most Quadras will outpace the early 603 Power Macs running older, non-PPC native software.
My recommendation is downgrading OS 9.1 to OS 8.6. This will still let you support most applications that require OS 9.1 with the appropriate CarbonLib libraries, and has support for things like USB cards, if you have one in your Performa. With another model of Mac, my recommendation may be different, but I think you'd be happiest with this on your 6200.
Nobody will ever use less than 640MB of RAM with Windows Vista.
-Steve Blammer.
There, that should be more suitably updated.
I had a finely tuned and tweaked 8.1 install on a Power Mac 7100, but I messed up something (tweaking finder fixer to adjust Finder RAM allocation). It was running with 8.1 for a t least three years.
I had to install 8.6 because I needed files in that computer and the 8.1 archive wasn't with me.
8.6 is slow compared to 8.1 on a Nubus PPC (that said I have 9.1 on an 8100/110). It also uses more RAM (26MB vs. 16MB).
You could get by fairly decently on 7.6.1 or 8.1.
8.1 has the advantage of supporting HFS+ (but please use HFS on the startup partition, even though it supports it 8.1 isn't very good at booting from it), lots of modern stuff: CarbonLib (old version though 1.0.4), OpenGL 1.2.1, Java 2.2.6, InputSprockets, Quicktime (5.0.5), etc.
The Finder utilities from Jerry Kindall http://www.jerrykindall.com/download.asp help speed up Mac OS installs.
For the 6200, I would use not more than OS 8.1 with complete patches such as OpenGL (which replaces some 68K code with newer PPC code), Game Sprockets 1.7.5, etc.
But if you can make do with 7.6.1, that would be better. You'll get faster performance.
-Steve Blammer.
There, that should be more suitably updated.
I had a finely tuned and tweaked 8.1 install on a Power Mac 7100, but I messed up something (tweaking finder fixer to adjust Finder RAM allocation). It was running with 8.1 for a t least three years.
I had to install 8.6 because I needed files in that computer and the 8.1 archive wasn't with me.
8.6 is slow compared to 8.1 on a Nubus PPC (that said I have 9.1 on an 8100/110). It also uses more RAM (26MB vs. 16MB).
You could get by fairly decently on 7.6.1 or 8.1.
8.1 has the advantage of supporting HFS+ (but please use HFS on the startup partition, even though it supports it 8.1 isn't very good at booting from it), lots of modern stuff: CarbonLib (old version though 1.0.4), OpenGL 1.2.1, Java 2.2.6, InputSprockets, Quicktime (5.0.5), etc.
The Finder utilities from Jerry Kindall http://www.jerrykindall.com/download.asp help speed up Mac OS installs.
For the 6200, I would use not more than OS 8.1 with complete patches such as OpenGL (which replaces some 68K code with newer PPC code), Game Sprockets 1.7.5, etc.
But if you can make do with 7.6.1, that would be better. You'll get faster performance.