Thread
Tiger on a 603/604??
Apparently it IS possible.
http://www.jump-ing.de/index.php?Lang=en&Menu=3&SubMenu=2
I wonder if it will work on my 6500??
http://www.jump-ing.de/index.php?Lang=en&Menu=3&SubMenu=2
I wonder if it will work on my 6500??
Maybe, but Tiger on a machine with a 200-300MHz 603 is gonna be really slow, not to mention the 128meg RAM limit. I'll be keeping mine on 9.1 
I don't know. The guy who wrote the article is running it on a 132 mhz 604 and doesn't complain about it being slow. A 6500 running at a higher clock rate should be able to keep up even if it is a 603 chip. Remember that the 603 is faster than it is normally given credit for being as it was in those crappy x200 machines that held it back for so long.
Oh, believe me, I know. My 6500/225 is a speedy little guy for the most part. I just don't think that it would make an amazing Tiger machine. Besides, I've been using mine as my dedicated Classic PPC machine anyway. It's my little, browser-challenged friend 
iCab 3.03 is your friend. ;D
Meh, iCab is okay. It's a bit slower than MSIE5 in rendering pages from my experience. However, it could just be that the browser gods dislike me
The difference is IE on the Mac is no longer being supported. iCab is and is probably the only browser that runs under classic that is still being updated and improved. My only complaint is it still chokes on any page that makes use of CSS. As long as iCab has been around, this should not still be an issue, even under classic.
I better put Tiger on my 4400 with 32megs ram.
Good luck getting OS X installed on a 6500. I've been trying for days. Now it's a last ditch effort of installing it on another Mac and moving the HD into the 6500/300...
That said, I've run 10.2.8 on a 9600/400 (604e 350 overclocked to 400 MHz). It runs fine, but it still seems slow compared to a G3.
Peace,
Drew
That said, I've run 10.2.8 on a 9600/400 (604e 350 overclocked to 400 MHz). It runs fine, but it still seems slow compared to a G3.
Peace,
Drew
How do you O/C the CPU boards on a PCI PM???
I'm still trying to think of what big Mac project I should do this summer in my free time...maybe this will be it.
Kind of jumping back and forth with an iMac 233 in a different case, learning Cocoa, and now this. I still have 23 days, 1 hour, 6 mins, and 35 seconds to decide
Kind of jumping back and forth with an iMac 233 in a different case, learning Cocoa, and now this. I still have 23 days, 1 hour, 6 mins, and 35 seconds to decide
I wanna get OS 9 to run in Rosetta on a MBI'm still trying to think of what big Mac project I should do this summer in my free time...maybe this will be it.
Kind of jumping back and forth with an iMac 233 in a different case, learning Cocoa, and now this. I still have 23 days, 1 hour, 6 mins, and 35 seconds to decide
The old fashioned way: With a soldering iron. 350 to 400 MHz is actually pretty easy to do and pretty reliable. The CPU only runs a little hotter (maybe 10 - 15 F).
Peace,
Drew
I got OS X 10.1 running on my 6500. I think it's still installed actually. It's very slow and does not seem to use the G3 card at all. Some stuff does not work but I think ethernet might have worked?
Have you tried using the 603/604 aware kernal that this guy links to in his article? I think that's probably the key.
No.
I eventually installed 10.2 on an IDE hard drive in a biege G3 then moved the drive to the 6500. It works like a charm. See my thread on the PPCMLA for details. http://www.ppcmla.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=164
More power to the guy for running Tiger on a 132 MHz 604. That's cool, and it gets him some geek cred. So for pure geek factor, there is some value in what he did. But if you aren't a geek, you've got to be shaking your head and thinking "why bother?"
Before you say something about pots calling kettles black, I fully acknowledge that there's not much point to running 10.2 on a 6500. I did it for the challenge, and I don't suffer from any delusions about the 6500 being a useful OS X box.
Peace,
Drew
I eventually installed 10.2 on an IDE hard drive in a biege G3 then moved the drive to the 6500. It works like a charm. See my thread on the PPCMLA for details. http://www.ppcmla.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=164
More power to the guy for running Tiger on a 132 MHz 604. That's cool, and it gets him some geek cred. So for pure geek factor, there is some value in what he did. But if you aren't a geek, you've got to be shaking your head and thinking "why bother?"
Before you say something about pots calling kettles black, I fully acknowledge that there's not much point to running 10.2 on a 6500. I did it for the challenge, and I don't suffer from any delusions about the 6500 being a useful OS X box.
Peace,
Drew
I want to get OS X running on my 6500 and as many of my older machines as possible, not for geek cred, but purely out of self preservation. There really doesn't seem to be much that I can see happening on the classic OS front in terms of new software development, not even in the shareware/freeware area, so OS X seems to be a necessity rather than an option.
There are thousands and thousands of software titles for your older PPC Macs. Your 6500 is exactly as capable as it was the day you bought it. And more functional if you consider all the apps that were written between then and now.
I don't understand this fixation on having the newest and greatest software.
Peace,
Drew
I don't understand this fixation on having the newest and greatest software.
Peace,
Drew
Then, it was easy to walk into a store and buy software for the classic OS. It's not that easy now.
Well, newer software tends to be better, in that its features are improved and extended and the code is quite often optimised for better performance (just look at the OS X versions, for instance, to prove the latter point). I've never seen the attraction of running old software when your machine will take something newer, which is why I always run the newest versions that I can coerce onto my machines. It's also great to be able to experience the latest and greatest in Mac software without having to buy a newish Mac to do so!
"Better" is a subjective measure. Performance is not. I'd wager that the majority of modern software is actually LESS tuned than older software.
Modern software requires modern hardware for a reason - those extra features (whether they are features in your or my opinion is another argument) often require extra horsepower. Consider Quartz graphics. Try that on a 68k...
As for OS X versions, it is widely recognized that 10.3 is the most optimized OS X and that "pound for pound" 10.4 is slower. Of course, 10.4 has to spend it's time doing a lot of things that 10.3 doesn't such as maintaining the Dashboard, etc. Up to 10.3, Apple definitely did make speed improvements in the core OS, however, and 10.3 is probably the fastest OS X we'll ever see. From here on out, it will be less about optimizing code and more about adding "features."
I'm not trying to argue with you, and I don't deny that there are some modern applications that are really nice. For instance, I like RSS and RSS readers. However, that doesn't mean my 6500 is less useful because it can't run Safari 2, it just makes it less relevant. I can still do everything I could do two years ago, so the capability hasn't gone away...
Peace,
Drew
Modern software requires modern hardware for a reason - those extra features (whether they are features in your or my opinion is another argument) often require extra horsepower. Consider Quartz graphics. Try that on a 68k...
As for OS X versions, it is widely recognized that 10.3 is the most optimized OS X and that "pound for pound" 10.4 is slower. Of course, 10.4 has to spend it's time doing a lot of things that 10.3 doesn't such as maintaining the Dashboard, etc. Up to 10.3, Apple definitely did make speed improvements in the core OS, however, and 10.3 is probably the fastest OS X we'll ever see. From here on out, it will be less about optimizing code and more about adding "features."
I'm not trying to argue with you, and I don't deny that there are some modern applications that are really nice. For instance, I like RSS and RSS readers. However, that doesn't mean my 6500 is less useful because it can't run Safari 2, it just makes it less relevant. I can still do everything I could do two years ago, so the capability hasn't gone away...
Peace,
Drew
The difference in performance terms between 10.3 and 10.4 seems to be subjective - some say Tiger is faster even on G3s, while others say 10.3. In my experience 10.4 is very fast - although I haven't tried 10.3 I can't imagine it could really be any faster! Remember that you can easily disable the Dashboard (and I think Spotlight too)
PowerPC Linux. Yellow Dog Linux. If you want the BSD family, NetBSD or OpenBSD. Yes, unixish (or un*x) software is a "necessity," because development = support. (I consider Googling forums and emailing strangers legitimate support, much better than I ever got over the phone) I've tried messing with the "Open" Darwin core, but without the fancy Quartz GUI that Apple provides in OSX, Darwin doesn't have much to recommend it. [
] ]'>Java is also a problem. If MRJ was updated... [xx(] ]'>
If I did not care about support (formal or informal) or updated software or games, I would salvage old Servers from DEC and Sun, not old Macs. [
] ]'>Depends on how complex the CSS is. Color, font styling, etc...usually no problem for me. Complex layouts, DOM manipulation and such...yeah, that can cause problems.
Linux is not MacOS.PowerPC Linux. Yellow Dog Linux. If you want the BSD family, NetBSD or OpenBSD. Yes, unixish (or un*x) software is a "necessity," because development = support. (I consider Googling forums and emailing strangers legitimate support, much better than I ever got over the phone) I've tried messing with the "Open" Darwin core, but without the fancy Quartz GUI that Apple provides in OSX, Darwin doesn't have much to recommend it. [
Java is also a problem. If MRJ was updated... [xx(] ]'>
If I did not care about support (formal or informal) or updated software or games, I would salvage old Servers from DEC and Sun, not old Macs. [
I would think 68k hardware enthusiasts would naturally turn to alternative OS's. :?:
When Mac code started to require PowerPC, and linux on the Quadra was shaky, I spent a lot of time with macminix, and some German professor's *nix running on MacOS- Mac06 - POSIX for MacOS www.dsitri.de/projects/mac06/ It killed me how expensive Tenon products were.
MacOS for the collectible in the attic- Sure, but if I'm using electricty, I want to at least pretend it does something useful. [
)] ]'> :
Just some comments on some earlier posts:
I've recently rediscovered Opera 5 for Mac. Much faster than any other browser on early PPCs. Way faster than netscape, faster than IE, faster than Opera 6.
Carbon apps are reeeeaalllyyy sssllllooowww on OS 9, better to get the Classic OS native version if it's available. (if it has that funky OS X alias and hidden folder setup, it's usually carbon).
If you want to run the latest and greatest, you need the latest and greatest hardware.
Older hardware has an optimal operating system which is not necessarily the latest system that will run on it. As a general rule it is the version pervious to the last system that will run on it.
My rules are:
68000 - System 6
68030 - System 6, System 7.1.2P, System 7.5.5 (for special applications/reasons)
68040 - System 7.1.2P, System 7.5.5/7.6.1 (for special applications/reasons)
Nubus PPC - Mac OS 8.1/8.6
PCI Power Mac - 8.6 (mainly because of USB support), 9.22 (if it's a faster PCI Mac.
Any Mac with a G3 (native or accelerated) - 8.6, 9.1, 9.22
G3 Beige - 9.22, 10.2/10.3
I've recently rediscovered Opera 5 for Mac. Much faster than any other browser on early PPCs. Way faster than netscape, faster than IE, faster than Opera 6.
Carbon apps are reeeeaalllyyy sssllllooowww on OS 9, better to get the Classic OS native version if it's available. (if it has that funky OS X alias and hidden folder setup, it's usually carbon).
If you want to run the latest and greatest, you need the latest and greatest hardware.
Older hardware has an optimal operating system which is not necessarily the latest system that will run on it. As a general rule it is the version pervious to the last system that will run on it.
My rules are:
68000 - System 6
68030 - System 6, System 7.1.2P, System 7.5.5 (for special applications/reasons)
68040 - System 7.1.2P, System 7.5.5/7.6.1 (for special applications/reasons)
Nubus PPC - Mac OS 8.1/8.6
PCI Power Mac - 8.6 (mainly because of USB support), 9.22 (if it's a faster PCI Mac.
Any Mac with a G3 (native or accelerated) - 8.6, 9.1, 9.22
G3 Beige - 9.22, 10.2/10.3
Here's a question.
Some machine had 2 or even 4 604e processors. Does OS X see the extra CPU's and take advantage of them. I can only assume that it would offer a hefty improvement in speed.
Some machine had 2 or even 4 604e processors. Does OS X see the extra CPU's and take advantage of them. I can only assume that it would offer a hefty improvement in speed.
OS X doesn't use multiple 60x CPUs. This is probably a limitation of BootX and the boot code as opposed to OS X which should just work w/ multiple CPUs. Alas, it appears that XPostFacto will never be updated to support dual/quad 604e Macs.
Peace,
Drew
Peace,
Drew