Slashdot Mirror


Run Mac OS X On Those Old Macs

AllInOne writes: "Despite Apple's claims to the contrary, Mac OS X runs just fine on older Apple hardware. Thanks to the Open Source nature of Apple's underlying Darwin system serveral clueful folks have written kernel extensions that allow "Old World" machines such as the 7300, 7600, 8500 etc to run OS X. They even support G3 & G4 processor upgrades cards as well. The best release (and free as in beer) is by Ryan Rempel. I just installed his Version 2.0b3 of Unsupported UtilityX on my old 8550 with a Newer G3 upgrade card along along with 10.1 and performance is quite respectable." And elsewhere along the OS price/performance front, Cinematique writes: "I was surfing around and came across this useful little tidbit for mac os x users. Apparently, apple included a way to compress the memory-hungry finder window buffer images, but didn't turn it on at the last minute due to a debuging issue. this turns the compression on, thus saving a sh*tload of memory."

221 comments

  1. YD by Guillaume+Ross · · Score: 1

    Does it run on Yellow Dog G4s ?

    1. Re:YD by MaxVlast · · Score: 1

      Huh? It runs on your G4. It's an OS. Yellow Dog is a different OS. They don't run simultaneously. (I know about mac-on-mac projects, but those aren't working with Mac OS X yet.)

      --
      There should be a moratorium on the use of the apostrophe.
      Max V.
      NeXTMail/MIME Mail welcome
    2. Re:YD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think he may be talking about the BriQ, a G4 based board running YDL. Apologies if you're not. class_A posting as AC 'cos I left my password at home... duh!! Well it is 2:45AM in the UK and I'm at work :-(

    3. Re:YD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, I'm guessing the poster was asking about the BriQ, which is a neat little PowerPC 7400 based system that fits in a 5 1/4" bay-module. And I'm also guessing the answer is "NO!" since that would effectively make it a Macintosh clone, and Steve Jobs, errr I mean Apple, doesn't like that one bit.

  2. window compression by green+pizza · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The coolest thing about OS X's window compression (off by default) is that is actually *improves* performance, as well as conserving a lot of memory. Because most CPUs are limited by a RAM thruput bottleneck, compression of window data will actually improve performance by transfering far less data to and from the CPU. The compression/decompression routine does indeed consume CPU cycles, but it almost trivial with modern CPUs.

    I love simple, free little performance boosts like that.

    1. Re:window compression by Foresto · · Score: 1

      Are you sure about that? It seems to me that although the data is compressed, it has to be uncompressed for the software to use it. In other words, the compressed data must be read, decompressed, and then written in uncompressed form, before it can be used. I'm skeptical of performance gain claims.

    2. Re:window compression by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mmmm... cake!

    3. Re:window compression by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only if it saw a human female!

      Now, MINE, on the other hand, would NOT compress if it saw a human female!

    4. Re:window compression by itachi · · Score: 1

      The claims are true. I'm guessing that the tradeoff is that the CPU can compress the data faster than the difference between writing the compressed and writing the uncompressed, resulting in less total time taken. I noticed a significant speed difference when hiding an application and un-hiding another - a gross change of 10 or so windows took about half as much time as it used to. It's a limited speed change, to be sure, that only applies in very specific circumstances, but it's there.

      itachi

    5. Re:window compression by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, no. The compressed forms of the windows' contents are able to be operated on without decompressing. They used a slick algorithm that really works. It's a very neat trick. And it works. Kudos to Apple!!

    6. Re:window compression by sv0f · · Score: 0, Troll

      With sufficiently small and unredundant objects such as your penis, further compression is impossible.

  3. Regarding the tidbit... by trilucid · · Score: 2, Interesting


    about how to enable buffer compression, is there anything comparable built into X these days? I'm *not* even close to well-acquainted with the source, so I have no idea.

    This seems like something that would work well to help achieve faster GUI performance and lower memory usage under Linux/BSD. Among my friends who've tried both Windows and Linux (mostly using KDE) on semi-older hardware (350-500 mHz boxes), the usual comment I hear is something like "very nice, but the GUI's a bit slower than in Windows...".

    I know the GUI "snappiness" gripe is a minor one (hey, I'm posting this from KDE 2.2.1), but the memory usage issue is a big one to me. What sort of mechanisms already exist (or are planned) in X to accomodate this sort of thing?

    BTW, to the author of that little hack, VERY NICE :-)

    1. Re:Regarding the tidbit... by owenc · · Score: 1

      Eh, I don't think most X desktops/window managers even double buffer all their windows...

    2. Re:Regarding the tidbit... by Bender+Unit+22 · · Score: 1

      I know the GUI "snappiness" gripe is a minor one (hey, I'm posting this from KDE 2.2.1), but the memory usage issue is a big one to me. What sort of mechanisms already exist (or are planned) in X to accomodate this sort of thing?

      soloution: buy more memory.... Please. we're dying out here.

    3. Re:Regarding the tidbit... by Spy+Hunter · · Score: 2
      soloution: buy more memory.... Please. we're dying out here.

      Seriously... go to pricewatch.com, look at the bottom of the page. 128 MB of PC133 RAM is 5 FREEKING DOLLARS!!! Buy some RAM!

      What I can't understand is that if you go to Best Buy or Circuit City, all the computers that they are selling still have only 128 MB of RAM. To get more you've got to go into the $2000+ range, or upgrade it yourself. What is the problem here? New computers nowadays should have 256 MB at the very least, what with RAM prices these days. Why are they selling computers with the bare minimum of RAM and processor speeds in the GHz range?

      --
      main(c,r){for(r=32;r;) printf(++c>31?c=!r--,"\n":c<r?" ":~c&r?" `":" #");}
    4. Re:Regarding the tidbit... by trilucid · · Score: 1


      I'll agree that the easiest way to alleviate the problem is to buy more RAM. However, this kinda defeats the whole purpose of innovative software engineering.

      The Mac hack discussed above makes better use of existing hardware capabilities, which (in my mind, as a developer) is a primary goal for software authors. Yes, you can usually increase performance by throwing more hardware at a problem. This leads us down a dangerous path, though... think about what today's database technology would be like if the major vendors had just taken that route instead of improving their code.

      I think all this applies especially to open source software, where we all have the opportunity to do something about problems and inefficiencies that arise. Any thoughts?

    5. Re:Regarding the tidbit... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Qt does. GTK+ 2.0 does.

      I don't know or care if Xt or Motif do. =)

    6. Re:Regarding the tidbit... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except that sometimes more hardware is the answer -- A prime example is the history of PC OSes littered with the corpses of 'innovative' half-attempts like Win 3.1, Win9x, OS/2 and MacOS.

      All because 16MB (or 32 or 64...) of memory was deemed to expensive at one time. In each case the developer had to spend more resources re-engineering these hacks to fix the broken assumptions, when it could have been done right in the first place.

    7. Re:Regarding the tidbit... by DavidRavenMoon · · Score: 1
      The original article came from MacOS X Hints

      http://www.macosxhints.com/article.php?story=20011 008024501793

      It was written by Andrew Welch, from Ambrosia Software.

      He states: "So what Apple did was they implemented a compression mechanism into the window server. When a window's contents haven't changed for a given period of time, the window server compresses them, so they take up less memory. Since it uses a compression method that doesn't require the buffer to be fully decompressed to do compositing (dragging a window around, updating the screen, etc.), you won't notice a slowdown with this compression turned on.

      "In fact, because less memory is being used up by the window buffers, more RAM will be available for your applications, with will mean less virtual memory paging, and may in fact result in speeding up your machine. Additionally, since less data needs to be read (it is compressed, after all!), things like updating windows may be faster as well. "

      I have to say I tried this, and it really does speed things up quite noticeably. I'm running OS X 10.1 on a 466 MHz G4 with 896 MB of RAM, so even though I rarely have page outs in VM, this tip worked, so it's not only VM related.

      --
      -- if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic - Lewis Carrol
  4. Other OS X tips by green+pizza · · Score: 5, Informative

    While there are scads of OS X "tips" sites, most of which are newbie unix introductions, I have found the following to be very useful with a wide variety of tips and other neat hacks:

    http://www.ResExcellence.com/osx/index.shtml

    Some of the more low-level hacks are probably pretty obvious to NeXT vets and Darwin & GNU-Darwin users.

    1. Re:Other OS X tips by mattdm · · Score: 1

      Hmmm. That page seems to be full of a lot of "we'll see what happens when OS X is released" comments....

  5. Performance? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    This is nice and all, but why would you want to do this? I'm reminded of people running Windows 2000 on 486s.


    I'd seriously like to hear from anybody who's installed OSX on an old Mac. Is it useable?

    1. Re:Performance? by CmdrPinkTaco · · Score: 1

      I don't run a mac, but after reading this I am considering it. This just goes to show the flexibility and the strength of Open Source. I also am interested if anyone has tried this and how successful it has been for them (read: is performance tolerable).

      Cool hack none the less.

      --
      Please give your mod points to others, Im at the cap. They will appreciate it more
    2. Re:Performance? by drsoran · · Score: 1

      Flexibility and the strength of Open Source? There's a reason Apple doesn't want people to run MacOS X on those old machines... they're too slow and people will bitch about it and their reputation will suffer. That and they need to sell more iMacs to pay Steve's house payment.

    3. Re:Performance? by Tyler-Durden255 · · Score: 1

      Provided you've already upgraded the stock CPU form the 604e era to a g3 or a g4 it is perfectly usable.

  6. Re:Mac Weenies by Guillaume+Ross · · Score: 0, Troll

    Did I say anything bad??
    This 20second thing gets me more frustrated every day

  7. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  8. Tempted by crisco · · Score: 2
    to pick up an older Mac, put more memory on and play with OSX (and that Mac on Linux PPC thing that was up on /. a few weeks ago).

    For me, it would be useful to check web pages on the mac browsers. With Dreamweaver available on Mac OS, I've got quick and dirty page design program. With Linux or OSX I've got a *nix that will handle the LAMP platform rather well, I can host all the vanity pages and toys and development stuff I want.

    So how much would I pay for a used Mac that would run OS X respectably? Or what model numbers should I look for if I were to surf Ebay for used gear? How much memory would I need to upgrade to so that OSX would run respectably? Are there many Macs that have expensive memory upgrades?

    --

    Bleh!

    1. Re:Tempted by znu · · Score: 2

      Macs maintain value very well. You can easily pay $800 or $900 for a machine 3 or more years old, especially on eBay. This is great if you've got a Mac to sell, but rather less great if you're looking to buy one....

      --
      This space unintentionally left unblank.
    2. Re:Tempted by maggard · · Score: 2
      Macs retain their value for a long time, it's not like the Wintel market with a 24-36 month optimum lifespan.

      For a new iMac preloaded with MacOS X 10.1 (& therefore MacOS 9.21 also) you'll pay $799, about the same as for an older box with a kluged MacOS X, no USB, a couple generations-ago video, etc.

      --
      I don't read ACs: If a post isn't worth so much as a nom de plume to its author then I wont bother either.
    3. Re:Tempted by aeames · · Score: 1

      i've got an imac dv se 500mhz G3 --about 14 months old and it runs os x 10.1 with plenty of speed I added 256 megs of PC100 RAM to bring it up to 384. New, something like this might run about $1100, used you might be able to do a little better.

    4. Re:Tempted by singularity · · Score: 1

      You have a few possible routes to take.

      You could go with one of the original PCI machines and use the Unsupported route. Machines worth looking at that are the x500 and x600 lines. Smalldog http://www.smalldog.com/ has some 7500 and 7600 for sale for under $130. If you go with any of the x500 or x600 lines, you will probably want to put down the $150-$200 for a G3 upgrade. Memory for these machines will run you about $65/128meg chip.

      You could also go with an older iMac. You can pick one up for $650-$900. Most of those use standard PC100 or other DIMMs (which are running really cheap right now).

      The last is to get an older G3 machine. You can pick one up for about $500-$600. Depending on the model, they use standard PC66 or PC100 chips. Search for either "G3 beige" or "G3 blue and white" to find these machines.

      This last way is probably going to get you a pretty good machine. It depends on your other uses for the machine, but all of these, with at least 256 megs of RAM, will be good for OS X.

      --
      - (c) 2018 Hank Zimmerman
    5. Re:Tempted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm very happy with my used PowerBook G3 'lombard' under OS X -- usually about $700 on eBay and competitive feature-wise with the new iBooks. Mine had 320MB of RAM, and I'll probably pick up a 20GB disk for $150 or so soon.

      The biggest minefield with older macs is RAM upgrades. Either buy one with at least 256MB installed, or make sure you are buying a newer model that uses standard parts (the old x500 and x600 models are expensive to upgrade.)

    6. Re:Tempted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you're looking for the best mac you can buy, period. Find an old 9600 with the Mach5 board. the 6 pci slots make up for the things the machine doesn't have. Figure 1 slot for USB and Firewire, 1 slot for an ATA card, 1 slot for a video card, 1 slot for gigabit...and you still, have 2 open slots.

    7. Re:Tempted by glwillia · · Score: 1

      Well, you can get a beige G3/233 for as little as $250, but that will run OS X rather slowly (and has other limitations, such as a 66MHz FSB and no AGP). My recommendation: if you really want to play with OS X, buy a new $799 iMac (or, if you really need PCI expansion slots/internal drive bays and are willing to trade the faster CPU and integrated monitor, buy a blue and white G3 (300-450MHz) for around $600-700).

      Personally, I have a 7600/200 with 176 MB RAM, and aftermarket Ultra DMA controller, but OS X chokes on the DMA controller, and I don't have large enough SCSI hard drives. Oh well, I have a friend with a new dual-800MHz G4, and another with a Titanium Powerbook G4, so that's not too much of a problem :)

    8. Re:Tempted by myov · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I'm using X (10.1) on a first-gen G3 (233Mhz with 352MB ram). 10.0 was slow but usable, while 10.1 is great so far.

      I found that upgrading the hard drive made a huge difference in performance. I used the original 4GB to test X, and it was slow. I found that it swapped frequently. I now use on a 7200rpm Deskstar drive, and I barely hear the HD work.

      --
      I use Macs to up my productivity, so up yours Microsoft!
  9. Now why? by TheMMaster · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Why didn't IBM think of this themselves? This sounds a bit too much like Wintel's ideas of forcing computer upgrades...
    this is in no way intended as a troll or flame just an observation

    --
    Fighting for peace is like fucking for virginity
    1. Re:Now why? by reynaert · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Remember that Apple is a hardware company. They want to sell computers. MacOS X is a cool OS, but it's only reason of existence is to sell more Macs.

    2. Re:Now why? by shumacher · · Score: 1
      I agree, to an extent. I have two machines that most of my computing is done on. One is a 466Mhz iBook that would have no problem running OS X. The other is a Pentium 100Mhz desktop. It has a few things that are up to date, like the hard drives, but for the most part the machine is a bit over the hill. My point, this machine can't really run Windows XP. It shouldn't be running ME. I wouldn't run anything later than 98 on it. It's a dog running KDE. BeOS is a dream though! :)

      Operating systems move forward just like hardware. OS X is a big move forward, and Apple made a decision regarding incorporation of backward compatibility. At least Apple makes a few choice OS versions available for free on theirFTP server. As for the P100, it might become an MP3 server when I do the home network...

    3. Re:Now why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but also keep in mind it takes *A LOT* of time, money, people-power to test and support code on all those platforms. I'm actually surprised that they're supporting as many machine-generations as they are.

      Apple simply cannot afford to have a vocal-group of OS X users running around trashing OS X because their computer crashes. Especially on a brand-new operating system.

      But hey, if the OSS community wants to support those older systems - thats great. But don't expect Apple to pick up and test your code for you.

      Tom

    4. Re:Now why? by MaxVlast · · Score: 1

      Also, remember that there are hoards of people watching breathlessly to see Apple make the slightest mistake. If a random journalist were to boot Mac OS X on his 7300 and it was unpleasantly slow, then wrote a scathing article about the speed, Joe G4-user might just skip the upgrade and continue happily with OS 9. And that's one of Apple's worst-case scenarios, I figure.

      --
      There should be a moratorium on the use of the apostrophe.
      Max V.
      NeXTMail/MIME Mail welcome
    5. Re:Now why? by Jay+Carlson · · Score: 4, Interesting
      No way. Apple is a software company.

      If Apple weren't a software company, they could just jettison all the expensive MacOS development work and produce translucent, elegant, highly certified and tested x86 machines, and save a bundle.

      If Apple were a hardware company, they wouldn't have lost so badly when the clone makers gave Apple's customers what the customers wanted---inexpensive, powerful machines that ran MacOS, without logos, frogdesign, or ad campaigns. Instead, Apple was forced to reconsider what made them competitive, and yanked all the software licenses.

      Back in the days of PReP (a joint IBM/Motorola/Apple standard for PowerPC motherboards), Apple stonewalled on support, claiming there were problems getting MacOS to run on PReP hardware---they couldn't get it to work without having Mac ROMs, and there was some problem with *that*, and etc etc etc. A small Swiss software company (I believe called Qix) demonstrated MacOS running on PReP hardware, and IIRC Apple threatened them into little pieces. Later, Apple sorta endorsed CHRP, a successor to PReP, this time with a spot for those all-important Mac ROMs to live. But Apple never shipped MacOS for CHRP; this was the era when Apple was retaking control over hardware that could run MacOS. Of course, all that talk about engineering requirements for Mac ROMs in hardware turned out to be bullshit; the iMac next to me has OpenBoot ROMs, and loads the Mac ROMs from the hard drive.

      Apple's work on PReP and then CHRP, and their commitments to supporting MacOS on those platforms led to great hopes for a commodity market in PowerPC motherboards, especially among Linux weenies like me who wanted widely available, appropriately priced non-x86 desktop machines available. Apple's broken promises are a part of why more of you aren't running Linux on non-x86 machines. But hey, at least Apple got to keep their software locked up.

      Locked up? Well, maybe that's the wrong concept. Let's think of Apple-branded hardware as a Really Big Dongle, a copy-protection mechanism for MacOS. (The CPU incompatibility also keeps them from looking like they're competing with Microsoft, which makes Microsoft happy.)

      Here's a fun experiment. Sit down with the parts list for a modern Mac and compare it to a well-built, well-designed Windows box from a first tier vendor, like Sony. The two machines may even have a lot of identical parts, now that Macs have PC133 memory, PCI, AGP, IDE hard drives, etc. Once you get done, add ~15-20% to the price of the PC to compensate for the generally better quality and design of Macs (if you believe that.)

      If you do this across Apple's product line, you'll notice price differences anywhere between $75-100 for iMac-like machines to several hundred dollars on the high end boxes. Part of that margin is what pays for R&D, and in particular, OS development. So in some sense, Apple prices their OS by the capabilities of the hardware it runs on. Microsoft can only dream of this kind of profit maximization through differentiated pricing. Oh, and the license isn't transferable; you end up buying a new MacOS license fee when you buy a new Mac. That's how Windows OEM licenses are supposed to work; there's still a fair amount of piracy of Windows onto beige boxes, but Apple avoids that too.

      Anyway, a potentially important reason why Apple hardware retains value is that a significant portion of original hardware cost is actually paying for the MacOS Dongle. Even as the cost of the hardware depreciates, the price of the ability to run MacOS does not depreciate as sharply.

    6. Re:Now why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. Apple is a systems company. Similar to IBM in the server space. The combined development of both hardware and software make Apple's offerings unique. Cut off one piece, the other would not survive long.

      Also, your analysis of Apple's cloning attempts are patently false. The cloners leeched off of Apple's R&D budget to undercut Apple. Its tough to compete when your competitors are using your designs. When Apple cut cloners, they also cut licenses to PPC motherboards designs.

      Apple's chief goal with the cloners was so that they would cut into the Intel marketshare. Rather, Power Computing & Company struck out at Apple's share instead (eg, showing up at MacWorld in combat fatigues and openly state they are taking on Apple). They just doomed themselves.

      Tom

    7. Re:Now why? by beerits · · Score: 1

      I agree with you that part of what makes apple unique is combined development of hardware and software. But I think you are being a little harsh on the mac cloners.

      It is true that the cloners did little to increase the MacOS marketshare(note that for a while they did increase the total marketshare a small amount but the media choose to focus on the decrease in apple's share) but this due to apple waiting until 10+ years had passed and windows had already won the war then anything the clones did. And it is true that the clones used apple's motherboard designs but the fact is until apple released a version of the MacOS that would run on CHRP they had to. The cloners ate into Apple's market share not only because they were cheaper but because many times they produced better, faster computers. The clones also introduced several technologies into the mac market. Dual and Quad processesing by Daystar, the first mac with built in 3d hardware was a powercomputing(the powerbase), first mac with a zif for the processer(the umax c series), ps2 ports on the powerbase and Motorola models.

      With all that said, I think apple is better off without the clones but I think it is only fair to note their contributions.
      PS Powercomputing had the Coolest ads: http://www.powerwatch.com/powerads/sluggo.jpg

    8. Re:Now why? by Jay+Carlson · · Score: 2
      (If there are moderators still reading this, please mod the parent up.)

      I agree that IBM in the server space is the classic example of a systems company that works. But IBM's services are far more broad than what Apple provides; Apple isn't in the business of producing end-to-end products and services. And even IBM lately is waving the unbundling banner with their Linux push. Vertical integration can provide great benefit to customers, but often it's used to extract high profit margins from customers once committed---and you can ask IBM's customers about that.

      I don't think my analysis is patently false (obviously). The cloners did use board designs incorporating R&D from Apple, and that was negotiated. Apple could have named an appropriate per unit price to compensate. But then there's PReP. With PReP and CHRP, IBM and Motorola provided significant amounts of engineering and the reference designs, if I recall correctly. Motorola sure wanted to get more PPCs out the door, so they were highly motivated to produce designs for motherboard manufacturers.

      Apple's goal with the cloners was also to look like they were open. There was significant corporate misgivings about sole-source hardware, and with Microsoft pretty much destroying every other vertically integrated personal computer hardware manufacturer, it left Apple vulnerable to these kinds of worries.

      In a perfect world, the cloners would have been encouraged to innovate on the hardware side as well, of course. But I agree with your position that the cloners got their hardware designs far too cheaply, and had no reason to push.

      Power Computing put themselves out of business by their actions, but that happened because of poor licensing contracts, and a complete misunderstanding of their relationship to Apple. But Apple lost a real opportunity to be the benchmark manufacturer and software licensor for an industry, rather than a lone wolf.

    9. Re:Now why? by MrBogus · · Score: 3, Insightful

      One big misconception in your post --

      PReP was an IBM/Motorola standard established so that they could eat Intel's business desktop market by selling Windows NT and OS/2-based RISC workstations. For a number of reasons, this effort pretty much when nowhere and was dropped by 1996.

      The key words being "business" and "Windows". IBM/Moto's marketing efforts were so lame and such a spectacular failure, that it's no wonder that everyone has forgotten this billion dollar initiative, and laid the blame at Apple's feet.

      Apple never really gave a clear indication that they were ever going to change thier business model from being a "systems vendor" to a software-only company. They really just wanted to get in early with what was supposed to be (according to IBM/Moto) the commodity CPU of the future and got dragged into the rest of it. (At this point, with Moto in embedded and IBM in big servers and a stangent parts supply, Apple probably sees that using PPC was a gigantic mistake to begin with.)

      Furthermore, Apple had neither the marketshare nor the business users to drive the PReP/CHRP pony, so hopefully it's _obvious_ that it wasn't their idea.

      There's also was serious problems with the lack of hardware indepedance in MacOS -- the clones had to use Apple-designed boards, and Apple wasn't planning to fix this until Copeland shipped (which it didn't).

      Open PPC Hardware failing is Motorola and IBM's fault, not Apple's.

      --

      When I hear the word 'innovation', I reach for my pistol.
    10. Re:Now why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The board engineering was virtually 100% Apple (it had to be because the OS was so brittle). Apple did propose raising the licence from $50 to $200, but that would have nearly eliminated the price advantage, so the clone companies balked.

      Soon after PReP/CHRP got no more than lipservice from Motorola anyway, so that was off the table before Apple finished the software support. Wintel had their lock in long before any of this could make any difference.

      It's a good bet that you are right and this effort wasn't serious at all and instead was an attempt to "look open".

      I just want to second the idea that Apple is a systems company too -- You sound like that you would personally prefer them to be a software company but nobody's shown them a way to get from there to here since Gassee turned down Andy Grove back in the 80s. Wanting it to be so doesn't make any sense if it would mean certain doom.

    11. Re:Now why? by gig · · Score: 2

      > Apple isn't in the business of producing
      > end-to-end products and services.

      Yes, they sell lots of end-to-end stuff. They sell camcorders as an option with an iMac, and that gives you a complete system for DV editing for under $1500, everything included, even FireWire cable and free streaming video service. CNN just bought millions of dollars worth of Apple's mobile journalism bundles, which is everything you need to make broadcast quality video on the go (PowerBook, Final Cut Pro, FireWire cable, DV camcorder). They have bundles for schools that include wireless base stations, desktops, servers, notebooks, notebook carts, and even a software called PowerSchool that does all the record-keeping and sends report cards to parents by email and whatnot. If you go to apple.com or one of their stores and buy a camcorder and a mid or high-end PowerMac, you have everything you need to shoot a movie, edit it, make a DVD interface, encode it into MPEG-2, and burn it to a DVD video disc. They even sell Apple-branded DVD-R blanks, and Mac OS X's Finder can burn data CD's and DVD's so you can archive your work. If iDVD isn't enough for you, Apple has a pro counterpart to it called DVD Studio Pro as well.

      Really, you couldn't be more wrong. They are one-stop shopping for many industries. It saves you so much time and trouble, it's not funny. You get a working system out of the box, so you can easily see as you go where a third-party upgrade of some sort might help your work ... like you decide that you want to get Roxio Toast and make really funky CD formats ... so you get Toast and if it doesn't work, you know it is Roxio's fault because you can burn CD's in the Finder ... you know your drive works, your computer works. It makes things a lot easier.

    12. Re:Now why? by DavidRavenMoon · · Score: 1
      Apple is a Computer company, back from the time when a computer maker had to make their own OS too.

      Microsoft is a software company, and Dell (et al.) is a hardware company.

      Apple provides a computer system much like SGI, Sun, or IBM.

      Apple is a company that writes software, but they make most of their income from the hardware. This is why their software only operations used to be under the name of Claris.

      --
      -- if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic - Lewis Carrol
    13. Re:Now why? by DavidRavenMoon · · Score: 1
      If Apple were a hardware company, they wouldn't have lost so badly when the clone makers gave Apple's customers what the customers wanted---inexpensive, powerful machines that ran MacOS, without logos, frogdesign, or ad campaigns. Instead, Apple was forced to reconsider what made them competitive, and yanked all the software licenses.

      This is not exactly correct. As an owner of a PowerComputing Mac clone myself, I followed this whole affair closely.

      Is wasn't just the Mac OS license, because the clone makers never had a license for Mac OS 8 anyway ... only System 7.5.x, it was also a license for the Mac ROM and general motherboard designs. Apple had to certify the designs before the clone maker could get an OS license, and ROMs. Without the ROMs you couldn't run Mac OS on the box anyway.

      This has changed of course, since they now use a ROM in RAM design, but since the clone makers could not legally sell a box with Mac OS installed that was the end of that. PowerComputing and a few others were going to include the retail package of Mac OS 8.0 (uninstalled at the time. My PowerCenter came with Be OS too!

      Now Apple is too secretive about their hardware (remember Be on PPC?) for makers to make a Mac OS compatible box I think.

      It is precisely because they are a hardware company that they lost so much to clone makers ... instead of people spending money on Apple hardware, they were buying the less expensive clones. If Apple really made money on software, then they would have been fine selling all those Mac OS licenses.

      --
      -- if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic - Lewis Carrol
  10. I run Linux/BSD/Darwin on old macs... by green+pizza · · Score: 2

    ... and let me tell you why.

    Cost. My old PowerPC 604-based Macs are still good performers, but in my mind are not worth the $80 - $130 cost of Mac OS X. Even though OS X has no CD key and no activation, I wouldn't feel right about pirating it. Especially since my business is audited enough for other things the way it is.

    Some of my oldest PowerMacs are running mkLinux, LinuxPPC, and YellowDog Linux. But I think I may start using Darwin or GNU-Darwin on my old PowerMac 9600s and G3s. Why? Straight binary compatibility. If it runs in Darwin, it'll run in Mac OS X. (The other way around is somewhat true, but keep in mind that Darwin does not contain the higher-level components of OS X... such as Aqua).

    But that's just me.

    1. Re:I run Linux/BSD/Darwin on old macs... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please give credit where credit is due. You run GNU/Linux/BSD/Darwin/X11/Apache on old macs. I think it's very unfair that developers have spent all their time working on these fine projects and you aren't willing to recognize them.

    2. Re:I run Linux/BSD/Darwin on old macs... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who do you think you are, anyways? RMS?

    3. Re:I run Linux/BSD/Darwin on old macs... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nah, not RMS. He would have just said GNU/Universe.

  11. Screen Resolution? by TechFire · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Even if an older Mac could run OSX fast enough, what about the screen resolution?

    I run OSX in both 1600x1024 (my cinema display) and on my widescreen TiBook. It works great.

    However, I would think that you would run out of space trying to run it in 640x480 resolution (which are what some older Macs are stuck at).

    1. Re:Screen Resolution? by znu · · Score: 2

      None of the Macs that'll run OS X are stuck at 640x480. Even the oldest of them will do 800x600 with 16 bit color.

      --
      This space unintentionally left unblank.
    2. Re:Screen Resolution? by x136 · · Score: 1

      When we are talking about older Macs, we are talking about the PCI machines (604/604e based, plus the 7500), not Quadras. :)
      My PM7500 does 1024x768 just fine. Would do more with more VRAM. It could do huge resolutions with a video card. Voodoo3 (Not OSX compatible), Rage 128, Radeon, etc.

      --
      SIGFEH
    3. Re:Screen Resolution? by firewort · · Score: 2

      I can do it in 800x600 happily, if I shrink the dock and the desktop icons.

      I don't know if I'd want to do it in 640x480, or smaller, but then, that's something I'll have to try. Hang on, switching resolutions (I'm in OS X right now...)

      GEEEZ!!!! THAT'S HUGE!!!! (640x480 on a 19" will do that to you)

      If I ever start to go blind, this OS will draw at such a large size that I don't think I'll have to worry-- But here's the real test- launching iMovie for OS X... (nope, it requires 800x600)

      Okay, launching Dreamweaver in Classic,
      the answer is, it uses the whole screen to crowd in it's palettes. Same as if I did 640x480 on any other screen.

      So other than, it's really easy on the eyes, I think the same maxims about screen resolution stand- user higher screen resolutions for apps that rely heavily on palettes.

      Switching back to 1600x1200...

      ahhhh.....

      --

  12. Another option by Xunker · · Score: 2

    Another option, besides the Unsupported X untility is a software product by Sonnet Technologies, maker of Macintosh Processor upgrades. It only works in conjunction with their like of Processor Card Upgrades, but it's 100% supported by them, and sometimes *real* commercial support is a nice thing to have. They say that will also have the L2 chache card upgrades working very soon.

    However there is a problem that can happen here: No matter what, you can't get around the fact that OS X needs a bucketload of memory, and many machine, like my 6400, max out at laughable amounts like 128mb, which is the bare official minimum for OX X.
    .

    --
    Hilary Rosen's speech was about her love of money and her desire to roll around naked in a pile of money.
    1. Re:Another option by Phroggy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      However there is a problem that can happen here: No matter what, you can't get around the fact that OS X needs a bucketload of memory, and many machine, like my 6400, max out at laughable amounts like 128mb, which is the bare official minimum for OX X.

      Not only that, but RAM for certain older Macs is ungodly expensive.

      --
      $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
      $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
    2. Re:Another option by klui · · Score: 1

      I thought that memory for older Macs like legacy PCI models were expensive because I looked at Crucial. OWC (where UUX can be downloaded) have very reasonable prices. Sure, it's not as inexpensive as PC-133 SDRAM; but it isn't as expensive as Crucial FPM DIMMs either. I believe 128MB costs around $40 dollars whereas it cost over $350 at Crucial.

    3. Re:Another option by ZigMonty · · Score: 1
      Bare minimum indeed!

      I've got MacOSX running on a 7600 (unsupported machine) with 48MB of RAM. It is slow due to swapping but it does work. I've got a feeling it would work in 32 as well. Can't wait to try the compression hack.

      Note: I'm not a masochist, my main system is a G4. I use the 7600 as a PPP router for our home network (using natd and ipfw). I put a VNC server on it, stuck it in a closet and it works like a charm.

    4. Re:Another option by DavidRavenMoon · · Score: 1
      I thought that memory for older Macs like legacy PCI models were expensive because I looked at Crucial. OWC (where UUX can be downloaded) have very reasonable prices. Sure, it's not as inexpensive as PC-133 SDRAM; but it isn't as expensive as Crucial FPM DIMMs either. I believe 128MB costs around $40 dollars whereas it cost over $350 at Crucial.

      I just bought a 512 MB PC-133 from OWC for $49!! :) Works fine in my G4

      --
      -- if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic - Lewis Carrol
  13. Avoiding swap saves time by tmoertel · · Score: 2

    The compression certainly takes some CPU time, but it's a lot faster than swapping to the hard drive. Hence the overall performance win.

    1. Re:Avoiding swap saves time by cymen · · Score: 1

      Plus of course the executables are compressed so loading them off the disk to begin with is much faster. You probably already knew this but didn't think to say it as it is so obvious.

  14. Daystar Genesis MP800+ by x136 · · Score: 1

    Yep, Ryan Rempel's UUX rocks. I'd like to find a Daystar Genesis MP800+ to try OSX out on... (4 processors, woohoo!)

    --
    SIGFEH
    1. Re:Daystar Genesis MP800+ by rfsayre · · Score: 2, Interesting

      There's one on ebay right now at $400, ending tomorrow.

    2. Re:Daystar Genesis MP800+ by Alan+Partridge · · Score: 1

      don't be dumb, a twin G4 450 would totally shred it! let alone a twin G4 800...

      --
      That was classic intercourse!
  15. Maybe.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Something tellsme I'm still outta luck with my Mac Classic eh? ;)

  16. Old news.... by Skuld-Chan · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    C'mon - I've know about these install techniques for at least a month after OS x came out. I'd be more impressed if they had a story on how to make it run on a 6100/60 with G3 200 turbo-board.

    And before everyone moans and complains that its ancient etc - consider it can run linux, mklinux and bsd pretty darn fast right now.

    1. Re:Old news.... by Skuld-Chan · · Score: 1

      off topic? C'mon - I can show you dated articles that will show anyone how to install mac os x onto a older mac.... IT IS ANCIENT NEWS!

  17. OSX on the PC by BarakMich · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Would this hack work if used under an "old mac" emulator such as Basilisk II? A cow-orker of mine wants me to try OSX, but I have no Mac, and I don't plan to buy one ever.. Thought that this hack might do the trick

    1. Re:OSX on the PC by esvoboda · · Score: 1

      Basilisk emulates a 680x0 processor, not a PowerPC. Thus, it will not work.

    2. Re:OSX on the PC by dan_bethe · · Score: 1
      OSX requires a PowerPC system. Basilisk II emulates a 68k. :)

      I would like to know if A/UX runs on Basilisk II though.

    3. Re:OSX on the PC by itomato · · Score: 2, Informative
      Yep:

      http://applefritter.com/ui/aux/images/processing.j pg

    4. Re:OSX on the PC by x136 · · Score: 1

      I would like to know if A/UX runs on Basilisk II though.

      Nope. Tried it. BII doesn't emulate a PMMU or some such, which A/UX requires.

      Did get A/UX running on an SE/30, though. Very slow. :) (SE/30: 16MHz 68030)

      --
      SIGFEH
    5. Re:OSX on the PC by lha2 · · Score: 1

      I guess that's why I can't get OSX to work on my Mac +, maxed out at 4 megs (which, in response to earlier thread, was pretty expensive to do).

    6. Re:OSX on the PC by Newtonian_p · · Score: 1

      I've tried that already.

      AU/X consists of special modified version of System 7 (to run MacOS apps, compability not always great) and a UNIX part.

      The UNIX part requires a PMMU which BasiliskII doesn't emulate. The System 7 part should run but for some reason it doesn't work either. When I tried to boot it up, I get stuck on a flashing Welcome to Macintosh screen.

      I've tried it using the DOS based emulator PC Fusion 3.0 and the System 7.0 portion works! But the UNIX part doesn't since Fusion also lacks PMMU emulation.

      --

      There are 2 kinds of people in this world: Those who write in decimal and those who don't

  18. Re:Mac Weenies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yer damned right! It's VITAL to say that not all Mac users are weenies! There exists at least ONE who is certifiably NOT a weenie!

    CER-TI-FI-A-BLEE!

  19. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  20. Best Buy vs. Clueless consumer by neurojab · · Score: 1

    Consumer: Windows is too slow on my computer.

    Salesman: What [computer] do you have?

    Consumer: Ummmm. [checks crumpled slip of paper] Intel inside.

    Salesman: Is it certified for Windows ME?

    Consumer: Dunno. I think it has Microsoft.

    Salesman: There's your problem. If it doesn't have the Windows ME logo, you can't run the new fast windows. You've got to upgrade.

    Consumer: That sounds expensive.

    Salesman: No way. I can sell you a windows ME machine for $600. It's got 1.2 Ghz.

    Consumer: Is that a lot?

    Salesman: Way more Ghz than you need. You really only need one. The .2 is extra.

    Consumer: Wow. How many megs has it got?

    Salesman: 128. Windows ME needs 64. That's double.

    Consumer [to equally clueless spouse]: Sue, can you get the checkbook?

    Salesman: Don't forget about the wonderfull internet access package it comes with. Only $300 extra. If you didn't get it, you'd probably end up with viruses.

    Consumer: But I've already got AOL.

    Salesman: They put that on at the factory. There's nothing we can do.

    Consumer: Well. OK. [signs check for $900]

    Moral of the story: BUILD YOUR OWN DAMN COMPUTER.

    1. Re:Best Buy vs. Clueless consumer by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      Uh, as stupid as people are, I think that it's more often clueless best buy vs. consumer.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:Best Buy vs. Clueless consumer by neurojab · · Score: 1

      True enough. But my point is that major retailers have no incentive to include things like nice video cards, enough ram, etc... because they have neither the clueful sales force or sufficent mass of educated consumers to sell to. What you end up with is uninformed people buying junk from idiots.

  21. Dare I ask... by LafinJack · · Score: 1

    ...what a cow-orker is? Or what those poor cows did to deserve a sound orking?

    --
    we are building a religion
    a limited edition
    we are now accepting callers
    for these pendant key chains
    1. Re:Dare I ask... by BarakMich · · Score: 1

      *BarakMich is a member of the DNRC

      It's a Scott Adams-ism. In-duh-viduals, cow-orkers, etc.

    2. Re:Dare I ask... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      It's a Scott Adams-ism. In-duh-viduals, cow-orkers, etc.

      "cow-orker" was in use on Usenet well before Dilbert came along.

  22. Re:That's easy to say.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I bought a used BX board with a P3 550 in it, and it has 4 dimm slots, supports a max of 1gb.

    So I went out and bough 4 256mb pc133 dimms.

    Now my box has a gig. Who needs to compress window buffers now?

  23. Get a G4 (or maybe a G3) by green+pizza · · Score: 2

    I would highly recommend a G4/533 or better, any slot-loading iMac, or the new iBook. Macs hold their value *very* well, so you're almost always better off buying new.

    Disks are IDE, keys/mouse are USB, video/storage/etc are Firewire. RAM is common SDRAM. PCI slots are standard 33 MHz, 64-bit.

    If you can stand 1024x768, a slot-loading iMac is the way to go. Add some RAM and maybe a faster IDE drive and OS X will be zippy.

    Avoid the older tray-load iMacs, they have a much slower bus and graphics and are slow buggies when it comes to OS X.

    RAM:
    Beige G3 = PC66
    Blue&White G3 = PC100
    Slot-load iMac = PC100
    G4 = PC133
    iBook = PC100 SO-DIMM
    PowerBook G4 = PC100 SO-DIMM

    1. Re:Get a G4 (or maybe a G3) by crisco · · Score: 2
      I assume Slot Load and Tray Load refers to CD-ROM?

      I wanna thank everyone for the advice. Looks like I might have been a little optimistic (as maggard suggests elsewhere in this story, I'm thinking of PCs that quickly become dirt cheap, I'm typing this on my nearly 5 year old P200 that I probably couldn't get $100 for). So my Mac dreams might be just a littler farther off. We'll see...

      --

      Bleh!

  24. See... by loconet · · Score: 1

    And they call Open Source a cancer.... pffft... go figure !

    --
    [alk]
  25. Latest news in Afghanistan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    A group of female blonde soldiers broke into the laundry room of a hotel and planted grenades, blowing it up. When asked why they did it they responded "our orders were to terminate Bed Linen"

  26. Will this work on my Apple //e Platinum Edition? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm just wondering if I can run Mac OS X on my Apple //e. Hopefully, being a Platinum Edition, it will be able to run Mac OS X. Any thoughts on this subject?

  27. BeOS on 4x 250 MHz PowerPC 604e by green+pizza · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The DayStar Genesis mac clone series was wild! (For those that aren't familar, see this: http://www.lowendmac.com/daystar/ and this: http://www.xlr8yourmac.com/ULTIMATE_MAC/Elvis/inde x.html). Back in the day, it was one hellof machine. Up to four PowerPC 604e CPUs on the CPU card. 16 DIMM slots, 6 PCI slots. Not bad for 1997.

    Because Mac OS Classic's multithreading was app-dependant, only "pro" apps such as Photoshop supported the additional CPUs. But when they did, whoa, did that thing ever haul.

    But it was on the PowerMac version of BeOS that the DayStar really shined. The coolest thing was the CPU meter app in BeOS. You could click on and click off CPUs at will. Turn off two CPUs and watch the load on the other two increase. Click off all four, and poof, the OS halted! (they later fixed that "feature").

    Anyway.... yeah, the old DayStar Genesis was awesome.

    1. Re:BeOS on 4x 250 MHz PowerPC 604e by LoudMusic · · Score: 1

      Now THAT is cool. What version of BeOS are you running on it? I've got R5.0.3 installed on an IBM PC Server 704. It's got quad Pentium Pro 166 with 512k cache each and 256mb ram. I wish I could get the IBM ServeRAID card to work, then I could use the 3 channel 12 drive RAID array and get some serious disk access. (:

      ~LoudMusic

      --
      No sig for you. YOU GET NO SIG!
  28. PowerTower Pro 225 by ainsoph · · Score: 1

    Anyone running OS X on one of those? I gots me one lying around somewheres here and maybe that would make the thing useful: the $$ value of that thing dropped from like $2000 bucks to 50 cents as soon as I drove it off the lot.

    If'n you are runnin it, how fast does it go?

    1. Re:PowerTower Pro 225 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have OS X running on a PTP, upgraded with a G3/450 and 256Mb RAM. It runs quite well, fast even. I am still using the stock video card that I'll replace and get even more speed when I do.

      For more, go read the forums at www.xlr8yourmac.com.

  29. Olde Macs & MacOS X by maggard · · Score: 5, Insightful
    One thing dampening all of this is that old Macs don't drop in price nearly as fast as Wintel boxes. Three and four year old Mac hardware (which is what is being talked about) still costs a lot more then 3 and 4 year old Wintel hardware. Indeed with a new entry level iMac costing $799 it's usually not worth retrofitting a whole new Mac from scratch.

    Are these adaptions useful? Sure, particularly for those with a significent investment in an existing Mac. If one's box is already tricked out, running well and has the oomph to run MacOS X 10.1 properly then this is a great thing. But for folks thinking "heeey, I'll just pick up an old junker Mac and cobble MacOS X onto it" you're probably not making a good investment of time or money.

    Wintel hardware has an optimum lifespan of 24-36 months, 48 months is still ok but you're running into diminishing results. Sure folks still use 5 year old Wintel hardware but rarely as a desktop system and even more rarely do they go out and buy it just to put a new OS onto.

    On the other hand lots of Mac folks are perfectly happy running 5 year old Mac hardware and are in no hurry to move on. They paid a premium and got a box that has lasted well and is only now going to be a problem if they want to jump to the new MacOS X. Selling for 10 cents on the dollar isn't how the old Apple hardware market works: There are folks out there still willing to pay serious money for extra PCI slots or built-in SCSI or whatever.

    So, if you're looking to play with MacOS X borrow a friend's. Or buy a cheap new box. Or throw Darwin onto your Wintel and play with the underpinnings. But going the buy-an-old-Mac-&-fix-'er-up route isn't really worth it unlesss you've already got one laying around.

    --
    I don't read ACs: If a post isn't worth so much as a nom de plume to its author then I wont bother either.
    1. Re:Olde Macs & MacOS X by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I gave up on my urge to buy a Mac just to play with OS X. I couldn't justify it anyway. The hardware is too expensive for anything fast enough. I can (and did) build a nice AMD 1.4GHz Athlon system for well under $1000. For that price, the best I could hope for is a subpar G3 platform implanted in a shoddy CRT monitor. On the PC side it is top end and will run anything I can throw at it.

      Apple: I don't WANT a computer built into the monitor. Why don't you release an "iMac-Lite" as a G3 cube for $500? I'd probably snap one of those up to play with as long as it had a minimum of 256MB of ram ($20 these days) and a 20 GB hard drive. Apple still seems to be trying to convince people that ram is still $200 for a 128meg stick.

    2. Re:Olde Macs & MacOS X by itachi · · Score: 1

      Why don't you release an "iMac-Lite" as a G3 cube for $500?

      They did, nobody bought the cube so they quit making it. I have to say, though, the iBook is a great way to go. They're nearly giving them away (for laptop prices, anyway). A laptop with a cd burner/dvd drive for less than $2k and with a *bsd factory installed... Of course, you are left with the expensive ram problem still, because it's a laptop, but adding 256mb is pretty reasonable - less then $80 right now. Nobody sells 512mb sticks very cheap. (also, check out Dells prices for ram, or gateway - Apple is priced competitively with them, just not with a real ram vendor).

      itachi

    3. Re:Olde Macs & MacOS X by Zagadka · · Score: 1

      The cube was a heck of a lot more than $500.

    4. Re:Olde Macs & MacOS X by skyhawker · · Score: 1

      I don't know what PC folks you know, but the PC folks I know are perfectly happy to run old PC's. For one thing, older PC's run Linux superbly. Of course, so do new PC's. And older PC's generally run the version of Windows they came with quite well. And older PC's can be upgraded with lots of new parts, because there are so many upgrade paths available.

      --

      The best diplomat I know is a fully activated phaser bank.
      -- Scotty.
    5. Re:Olde Macs & MacOS X by maggard · · Score: 2
      The cube was a heck of a lot more than $500

      Yeah, and Apple's the only PC vendor healthy (a few billion in the bank, sales steady and layoff's totalling under 50 folks.)

      Look at the legions of cheap PC makers that have evaporated: Leading Edge, Packard-Bell, E-Machines, Gateway struggling. A $500 buck Cube would've been suicidal last year.

      --
      I don't read ACs: If a post isn't worth so much as a nom de plume to its author then I wont bother either.
    6. Re:Olde Macs & MacOS X by Zagadka · · Score: 1

      Sure. My point was that itachi's response of "They did" to the AC's question "Why don't you [Apple] release an 'iMac-Lite' as a G3 cube for $500" was incorrect. Your post would actually have been a better response to the AC's question. They never released a $500 cube because they'd be selling machines below cost.

    7. Re:Olde Macs & MacOS X by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      you shouldn't be talking about "Wintel" boxes. this discussion is about *nix, so either Intel or PC would be more appropriate.

      I'm not just being pedantic. The reason I'm going to the trouble to point this out is, it's Windows that's the pig, and not old mobo's that are slow. I run Windows 2000 on 600 to 900 MHz machines with 128M or 256M of memory and it runs great. less than 128M is not enough. Linux runs great on those boxes too.

      But I recently installed Linux on an old 100MHz plain-Pentium: with 32M it thrashed too much to run XWindows, but with 64M it's *totally* usable (I don't use KDE or Gnome though, so I'm probably lighter weight in X) The old 2G disk drive is too slow (chucka chucka chucka...) but when I popped a 20G in there (yep, I have to boot from floppy, the old BIOS won't recognize it) that problem went away. Big software builds do take longer, yep, but the UI experience that you might expect to be slow is not slow at all.

      So, your basic point about price drops is valid, but your short lifespan numbers reflect "Lose-dows" and not the much better experience you get with "Win-ux" on these old boxes. The main problems are actual obsolescence (too little memory address space for physical disks or RAM, too few PCI slots (though, good place to drop those old ISA cards)).

    8. Re:Olde Macs & MacOS X by maggard · · Score: 2
      Sure folks still use 5 year old Wintel hardware but rarely as a desktop system and even more rarely do they go out and buy it just to put a new OS onto.

      I stand by my words.

      Few folks use PC's from '96 as a desktop system. Server, firewall, backup box, etc. sure, but not as their desktop system. Not most folks.

      Furthermore few folks run out and buy a box from '96 with the goal of scraping off the OS it came with and putting on, in this case MacOS X, in others likely BSD, Linux, etc. and using them as a desktop box. I'm sure it happens but that's really reaching the horizon of practicality.

      A 200MHz Pentium isn't much cheaper in up-front dollars then a PII-300 from a year or so later and likely a lot more hassle, BIOS issues, ISA bus, etc. Just to put it in perspective we're talking about boxes that shipped with either Win3.11 or Win95a.

      I guess the folks I know are just more cluefull then your friends.

      Now you were gonna start dragging out hypotheticals, right?

      --
      I don't read ACs: If a post isn't worth so much as a nom de plume to its author then I wont bother either.
    9. Re:Olde Macs & MacOS X by gig · · Score: 2

      The iMac also has a VGA out, so it is easy to add a second display and use both at once. Think of it as a computer with a secondary 15" display built in.

      The G3 is not sub-par ... it's a really great chip, very small and low-power, so no fan. I'm running Mac OS X right now on an older PowerBook with a G3/400 and it's just great. The $799 iMac has a faster desktop hard drive and a faster CPU than this machine, so it is a fine OS X machine if you give it some more RAM, which is cheap.

      > Apple: I don't WANT a computer built into the
      > monitor. Why don't you release an "iMac-Lite"
      > as a G3 cube for $500?

      Because they include a lot of stuff with every Mac. Every one has FireWire, and iMovie, and a PostScript interpreter, PDF printing, multiple languages, lots of great fonts, Java2, optical mouse, so much more. The software bundle is real software, not demos or LE stuff or stuff that you can't upgrade later. Not only will you use the bundled software, but they will become some of your favorite applications ever (iTunes, iMovie, iDVD, Mail, and QuickTime are just joys to use). Also, the machines update themselves automatically from Apple's servers, and you get free online storage and streaming servers and such, and OS upgrades are frequent and easy to install, and they add features that users have asked for. It takes money to keep the whole boat floating, though. The $799 iMac is already kind of a recession special ... Mac OS X, iMovie, AppleWorks, and an optical mouse are almost half that by themselves, when you buy them separately.

    10. Re:Olde Macs & MacOS X by itachi · · Score: 1

      No, it wasn't $500. It was dirt cheap, though. Not much more than the current iMacs, IIRC. The cube was basically an iMac with no monitor, and if you didn't buy an Apple monitor to go with it, it was still in that price range. My point was that they did sell a cheap, no monitor machine that was roughly iMac-ish.

      itachi

    11. Re:Olde Macs & MacOS X by Zagadka · · Score: 1

      The low end cube was $1500 -- significantly more than $500, and certainly not "dirt cheap" for a 450MHz machine with no monitor.

    12. Re:Olde Macs & MacOS X by WillAdams · · Score: 1

      gig said:
      > Because they include a lot of stuff
      >with every Mac.
      >Every one has FireWire, and iMovie, and
      >a PostScript interpreter

      ?!?

      Where's the PostScript interpreter---NeXT had Display PostScript, Macs don't.

      Theyhave to have lousy bitmap .eps previews, can't display an arbitrary .ps file on-screen without third-party software, and Mac OS X can't use Multiple Master fonts 'cause they tossed Display PostScript.

      > PDF printing

      That's free with Adobe Acrobat Reader, xpdf, or a PostScript Level 3 RIP, 's not in Mac OS 9- save as a third-party thing. Mac OS X gets it with ``Quartz'' (Display PDF) but it's funky with weird colour-matching :(

      Stuff Apple tossed to save money:
      - Display PostScript (not much choice here)
      - Pantone colour library licensing
      - {\sc unix}\textregistered

      Stuff Apple left out 'cause of third-party encumbrances:
      - TAR based .pkg format which pretty much worked
      - File / directory compression built into the Workspace
      - Fax modem support for send / receive with full PostScript
      - Webster's
      - Oxford's Book of Quotations

      William
      (Who wishes Mac OS X had a ``Digital Gutenberg'' by default)

      --
      Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.
    13. Re:Olde Macs & MacOS X by maggard · · Score: 2
      You don't let facts interfere with your opinions, do you?

      The Cubes were ~$1500 (different models, discounts at the end.) That's triple $500. At the same time iMacs ranged from $800 up to $1500.

      However the Cubes were not "an iMac with no monitor". They were significantly different internally and were clearly designed to bridge the gap between the intended-for-the-home iMac and the high-end big-box G3 line.

      Unfortunately while folks are willing to accept limited expansion in an iMac they were unwilling to do so in a "professionial" model, especially when the cost to jump to a G3 wasn't all that much more and it was obviously a more flexible design.

      So no, Apple has never sold a Mac in the $500 price range. The lowest they've ever gotten is $799 which then & now buys you an entry-level iMac that one would be well advised to pop some addt'l 3rd party memory in ASAP.

      --
      I don't read ACs: If a post isn't worth so much as a nom de plume to its author then I wont bother either.
    14. Re:Olde Macs & MacOS X by itachi · · Score: 1

      Sorry. My memory seems to have mislead me. I recall them being cheaper and not all that different from the iMac of the same generation, but wrong is wrong.

      itachi

  30. mmm beer by kraf · · Score: 3, Funny

    > The best release (and free as in beer)

    Will someone finally point me to that free beer
    open source people are talking about ?

    1. Re:mmm beer by EvilStein · · Score: 1

      It was all at the Allseer party for Dimitry's legal defense fund, after LinuxWorld.

      *UrP*

      Sorry, we drank most of it. ;)

    2. Re:mmm beer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You could try

      www.freshmeat.net

      and/or

      www.sourceforge.net.

  31. Re:Will this work on my Apple //e Platinum Edition by green+pizza · · Score: 4, Funny

    I hear the port to the MOS 6502 8-bit CPU is coming along better than expected. Should be out this spring, probably very early in April.

  32. will by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    will it run on my apple 2e? if it won't then i don't want it.

  33. Re:Will this work on my Apple //e Platinum Edition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The 6502 version doesn't run Aqua, it uses the Gorgonzola interface.

  34. Hrmm... by radiashun · · Score: 1

    Will it run on my LCII? That's an old machine... :-)

    1. Re:Hrmm... by Phroggy · · Score: 1

      Considering that the LCII has a 68LC020 processor and maxes out at 10MB RAM, I'd have to say no. Try Linux, though!

      --
      $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
      $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
    2. Re:Hrmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      May as well! God knows KDE can't be any slower than on my C433/256MB. Nice bloat there, guys.

    3. Re:Hrmm... by radiashun · · Score: 1

      Haha, yeah, I know. It was the computer I first started on...

    4. Re:Hrmm... by shumacher · · Score: 1
      Considering that the LCII has a 68LC020 processor and maxes out at 10MB RAM, I'd have to say no. Try Linux, though!

      Actually, the LC II uses a 68030. IIRC, the only shipping Macs to use the 68020 processors are the Mac II and the LC. Both 68020 machines ran at 16Mhz, and neither had the "LC" designation. They can run *nix as long as the 68852 PMMU is installed.

      The LC II should be able to run FreeBSD, Debian, and a RedHat 5.2 port that seems to only be available on a small university FTP server - I don't want to post it on slashdot.

      I did own an LC 475 for a time, but unfortunately, many Linux distros have a hard time with most of the 68LC040 processors installed in Macs. Seems they were defective in some obscure way that the MacOS didn't care about, but Linux lived on. Of course, the easy fix is to drop in a 50 Mhz 68040 processor, but with PowerPC machines so cheap, it didn't seem like spending more money on the LC 475 was worth it.

      I think a pizza box machine might be fun for a project though. Fairly fast without really needing a fan, good collection of ports, tiny motherboard with all I/O. One card slot that takes cards that lay flat, without needing some silly riser board. Available all day at eBay for ~$20. I still have a TV card lying around here somewhere...

    5. Re:Hrmm... by option8 · · Score: 2

      netbsd.

      it's as close as you're going to get.

      i installed it on my lcII - it's nice to see the latest software version of something running on a 10 year-old low-end machine - and it's been good training on hacking on my OS X machine's BSD guts. i'd only been exposed to linux (well, and solaris and hp/ux at school) before.

      hell, it even runs X (as in X windows) at 1 bit color on the tiny 12'' apple monitor perched on top.. it's wicked slow, but it's fun to see netscape and a couple of xterms compiling things (don't bother, it takes overnight for simple programs), the little LC Ethernet card (from welovemacs.com) going crazy, hard drive churning away... ahh

      *that's* how computers are supposed to be built :)

  35. hmm, magic numbers by Dr.+Awktagon · · Score: 2
    <key>BackingCompression</key>
    <dict>
    <key>compressionScanTime</key>
    <real>5.000000000000000e+00</real>
    <key>minCompressableSize</key>
    <integer>8193</integer>
    <key>minCompressionRatio</key>
    <real>1.100000023841858e+00</real>
    </dict>

    Can I round that last number off? :-)

    Not that I can try, I bought a new Mac *2 days* before they announced OSX would come with new Macs (and would send it cheap to anybody who bought a Mac after that day) so if I want it I have to buy it full price. Bleh!

    1. Re:hmm, magic numbers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So? Apple offered their up-to-date program to anyone who bought a Mac since July of this year or so. I got the original X for 20 bucks after picking up TiBook up a few weeks before it was released. Same deal with x.1. So far MacOS X has cost me a whopping 40 bucks for one of the best UNIX systems on the planet. That's not so shabby.

      Hell, it's probably the only operating system on the market that is actually worth it's full retail price.

  36. Works Well. by MoNickels · · Score: 4, Informative

    I'm using this hack. It seems to work well and appears to do no harm. I can see the difference on my slow PowerBook G3/300/192 just dragging windows around.

    If you want to improve your Finder experience further, run the app ShadowKiller. It removes the window shadows which seem to take too much power to make on a slow, old Mac. Definite improvement. However, because OS X windows don't have a frame all the way around, you're gonna get weird white window on white window experiences; you'll get used to it.

    Another good site with Mac OS X tips is Mac OS X Hints.

    --

    Wordnik, a dictionary project which aims to collect

  37. Re:Will this work on my Apple //e Platinum Edition by Mistah+Blue · · Score: 1

    How about my Apple ][+ with Zilog Z80 add-in running CP/M? The Zilog rocks!

  38. Re:Will this work on my Apple //e Platinum Edition by Phroggy · · Score: 1

    Yeah, it uses a port of aalib to display alpha-channel drop-shadows on a 40-column text screen. ;-)

    --
    $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
    $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
  39. 2 days ain't much by KraRe · · Score: 1

    2 days. Sorry, if you did this in the first place, but did you ever go to your local Mac reseller or called Apple to get your copy of OS X ?
    There wd have been a chance I think. Then.

  40. Re:Will this work on my Apple //e Platinum Edition by Jeremy+Erwin · · Score: 2

    I'm really looking forward to the 65C816 port (Apple IIgs). Then I can use KEGS to run my favorite OSX apps on Linux. It will be nice to be able to use apple programs such as cc and c++ on my other machines.
    :)

  41. Re:Will this work on my Apple //e Platinum Edition by green+pizza · · Score: 2

    Yeah, it uses a port of aalib to display alpha-channel drop-shadows on a 40-column text screen. ;-)

    Remember, Apple II had HighRes and Extended HighRes graphics modes. One of the Woz's design goals was to make it a machine that could play decent games.

  42. Re:Will this work on my Apple //e Platinum Edition by Phroggy · · Score: 1

    yeah, yeah, I know. And there was a card to make it work with 80-column text (PR#3, was it?). Just being silly.

    --
    $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
    $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
  43. Apple doesn't say that ... by Lars+T. · · Score: 1

    ... Mac OS X won't run on these old Macs, it says it is not supported. When Apple says "not supported", they mean you're on your own with any problems that come up (unlike other companies, who mean by "not supported" "may create rift in space-time continuum that would wipe out our sector of the galaxy.")

    --

    Lars T.

    To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

    1. Re:Apple doesn't say that ... by fractaltiger · · Score: 1

      Very true.

      I have seen *very* old macs running very new code (netscape 4.7, sharing programs, music players) and ask myself, how do they do that!?

      I am now more aware than ever about upgrades because windows98(first ed) was a minor upgrade to windows95 second ed... but something impredictable happened: even the DOS core was affected and my games started freezing in a resolution-change event --in every W98 system and flavor I tried.

      For some reason when an Apple OS stops supporting things, you can either install OS 7 and rename the old system folder, do a little trick called blessing the system, and off you go... or... if you experience processor compatibility problems, there are many Mac-within-a-mac emulators from emulation.net so you can run things from 15 years ago that you can no longer find in the supported market but you *paid* for before you upgraded or switched Macs.

      I am frustated trying to get the same compatibility on any version of Windows with old DOS programs and games. I once had this secondhand laptop in '96 with a *sealed* copy of Excel 3 or so, and my impatience to install it under windows3.x proved frustrating since Excel "needed" windows 2.1. Plus my old fighter jet game pack broke with windows98 and the wonderful Falcon planes are no longer working in DOS mode / windows98. Falcon ran well in win95/DOS.

      If anyone knows of a good DOS 3 emulation site for Windows computers, kinda like emulation.net, reply!! I'd love to have the full compatibility that I PAID for when Windows9X said it PLAYS better.

      --
      "Wireless : LAN :: Laptop : Desktop"
    2. Re:Apple doesn't say that ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would say that back compatibility on Macs is a thousand times worse than DOS/Windows. Every new OS tweak or new hardware breaks _some_ apps. After a while this adds up and none of your old software works. Furthermore, I can install DOS 5 on a 2Ghz Pentium, but I can't install old MacOSes on new machines. (Although LoadRunner from 1984 runs great on OS X!)

      (A couple suggestions -- somewhere in Win98 there's a binary specifically designed for tweaks to run Windows 2.x apps. This thing carried over from Win 3.1 and I bet it works with Excel 3. As for emu -- VMWare.)

    3. Re:Apple doesn't say that ... by Lars+T. · · Score: 1

      One reason why you can "install DOS 5 on a 2Ghz Pentium" is that it still has that brain-dead A20-gate. IOW it's fully compatible even with things that were a bad idea when implemented >10 years ago. BTW, you'll have trouble with Win95 on that 2GHz P4, because the LOOP instruction (IIRC) is now too fast for some tests (the AMD K6-2 had similar problems some years ago).

      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

  44. You're an idiot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's about the "algorithm?" Do you have any idea what you're talking about? I know, let's make something from nothing, and say it's possible because of the "algorithm!" God, I can't stand the spread of idiotic misinformation.

    1. Re:You're an idiot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except in this case he happens to be correct, and you happen to be a fuckhead, because the RLE algorithm that Apple used allows them to do some window operations without decompressing the whole set of data.

      In other words, you lose.

  45. Forget Macs ... by mihalis · · Score: 3, Funny

    ...when is the NeXT Cube port of OS X coming out? Ok, so a 25MHz 68040 isn't going to set the world on fire, but my cube has the NeXT Dimension graphics card. In its day this was a powerful beast and has an Intel i960 accelerator.

    I bet Steve Jobs would secretly love such a release. Hey, I'd even get enough RAM for it (mine can go to 128MB I believe).

    Chris Morgan

    1. Re:Forget Macs ... by jcr · · Score: 2

      >...when is the NeXT Cube port of OS X coming out?

      This sounds like the kind of thing Mike Paquette would do, but only distribute internally at Apple.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    2. Re:Forget Macs ... by mihalis · · Score: 2

      This sounds like the kind of thing Mike Paquette would do, but only distribute internally at Apple.

      Please send him my sincere best wishes and encouragement... :)

    3. Re:Forget Macs ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      My NeXT Cube (sans Dimension, sadly), serial # 0000000200, is running my NeXT 400dpi and OpenStep 4.2 Patch 4 on the same subnet this IBM Thinkpad is 802.11b'd into.

      The Sun SparcStation 20 18G/256 runs OpenStep 4.2 Sparc happily OmniWebbing and NeXT Mail.app-ing into this nascent millenium.

      My friends, we who speak netInfo and appreciate Ohlfs have been into and are comfortable with the future that so many so called computer people have yet to experience. I have a 1.4 Athlon Tbird all maxxed out, and it does nothing to inspire the lust and reverence that black hardware and old sun4m with OpenStep can.

      OpenSource is definitely where the current energy is. In 1994, that energy was in the NEXTSTEP community. When I wear my 1994 NeXT Expo III t-shirt, I still get a rush.

      In all these modern OSes, where is the Services menu?

      JoeBob
      The Anonymous NEXTSTEP loving SysAdmin

  46. Not Apple G4s running YDL, but the briQ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think the ``Yellow Dog G4'' being referred to is the briQ, a ``small footprint, single board, PowerPC Linux network appliance computer'' in a CD-ROM-drive-size package.

    The briQ doesn't come with any video subsystem, though. This might make it difficult to run Mac OS X even if it were otherwise supported unless you added the PCI expansion bridge and a third-party video card.

  47. Re:apple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ok. I wouldn't say sexy. How about "non-off-putting" computers. I like the idea of a decent looking computer in about the same way that I like the idea of visiting the real world for entertainment, and cracking jokes that don't involve references to decade old obscure console games. Maybe that doesn't make me a real geek.

  48. Useful little tip??? by TotallyUseless · · Score: 2

    Anyone know what this useful little tip is, as the bulletin board for macnn seems to have died a horrible death, and is no longer reachable? I guess UltimateBB isnt so ultimate after all....

    --

    Time for some tasty Shiner Bock!
    1. Re:Useful little tip??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      MORON... MacNN's fora WERE down, have been back up for some time now, and it was duly announced they'd be down for upgrading...

    2. Re:Useful little tip??? by TotallyUseless · · Score: 2

      They were down when I went there, so as far as I was concerned, they were down. period. Secondly, I never visit Macnn, and so I didnt know they were upgrading. I tend not to visit sites who's content consists entirely of press releases, sorry. I can check versiontracker to see new programs, I dont need a mac 'news' site to do this for me. If you would like a real news site for mac info, try macintouch, not maccentral and macnn. By the way, thanks for the quip about my intelligence... see you on the 'fora'!

      --

      Time for some tasty Shiner Bock!
  49. Apple LIED to you. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Remember Gil saying at WWDC 1997 that all machines sold by Apple in 1997 would run the new Rhapsody OS? (mac OS X)

    If it doesnt run on you box, it is because Apple ied to ya.

    1. Re:Apple LIED to you. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seeing as how you are a poor, obtuse ignoramous, it's not surprising you fail to understand that Rhapsody is not OS X. They are built from different cores and are related in timeline only. I have several alphas of the doomed Rhapsody and they all run perfectly well (as well as alpha versions can run) on my 7100/80.

      (note to moderators -- this reply is a flame and deserves to be mod'ed down as such. You are doing your job. Thank you.)

    2. Re:Apple LIED to you. by green+pizza · · Score: 5, Informative

      Rhapsody is not OS X

      Close, but not quite. Perhaps it's time for an Apple OS and Code Name refresher.

      First off, and totally unrelated, is Apple's first unix OS from the mid 1980s, A/UX. This OS made its way thru several revisions, eventually ending up around 3.1. A/UX was available for certain 680x0 CPU based machines only and was never ported to PowerPC as at that time Apple had been hoping to move completely to Copland.
      http://applefritter.com/ui/aux/

      (The move from the 68K to PPC is also an interesting story, especially the small side storys of Apple's lab experience with later model 68Ks (68060, etc), the 88K, Alpha, 5x86, and MIPS CPUs.)

      Apple's first attempt to upgrade and overhaul the Macintosh System software (Mac OS) was with Blue and Pink. Blue eventualy became System 7.0 and was a significant upgrade over previous versions of the OS, but still lacked many modern architectural features that were even present on the Lisa's OS in 1983 (in the Macintosh's defense, the Lisa had almost 10x as much RAM and cost 5x as much when it originally shipped). Blue was to be followed by Pink, a modern OS to be designed by Apple and a startup known as Taligent. Pink died a horrible political death and never saw the light of day.

      Apple's second attempt was Copland, which was to be later followed by Gershwin, a heavily OpenDoc container based platform. Copland came close to being finished, Apple had released an early developer release (DR0) to select developers and had already started a Mac OS 9 marketing campaign. Copland was canned for a number of reasons, application compatibility (or the lack thereof) was a major factor.
      http://product.info.apple.com/pr/press.releases/19 95/q3/950508.pr.rel.copland.html
      http://www.bozosoft.com/copland.html
      http://www.macworld.com/1995/04/news/550.html
      http://www.macworld.com/2000/09/buzz/windingroad.h tml

      Following the demise of Copland, Apple continued development of Mac OS 7.X (at the time at 7.5.X and 7.6.X). A version with some of the Copland features and appearance was developed as 7.7 but released and marketed as 8.0. Today this series is known as "Classic" Mac OS and is currently at 9.2.1. Since 8.0, Classic has undergone several major microkernel changes, driver architecure tweaks, and VM overhauls.

      At the same time, Apple began a new OS search. Their options were to revive Copland, license Windows NT, or buy someone such as Be or NeXT. They decided to buy NeXT (which came with Apple and NeXT cofounder Steve Jobs).

      Apple's most recent OS attempt, the the one that made it out the door, was Rhapsody. This project began at NeXT porting and updating their "OpenStep For Mach 4.2" (formerly NEXTSTEP 1.x - 3.3) OS to Apple PowerMacintosh hardware. The first devloper release of this was Rhapsody DR1 and came in three flavors... Rhapsody for Mac, Rhapsody for x86, and Rhapsody for NT (essentially a runtime framework to run Rhapsody apps atop Windows). Apps could be crosscompiled into a single fat binary to run on both platforms.

      Rhapsody went thru several developer releases and was first publically shipped as Mac OS X Server 1.0, which had a GUI that resembled both Mac OS 8 and OpenStep. OS X server eventually reached version 1.2. 1.2 was codenamed Rhapsody 5.5. This can also be seen by doing a uname -a.

      Later Rhapsody developer releases were known as Mac OS X Developer Previews, eventually gaining the Aqua look and perhaps most importantly, Carbon support. Previously, Rhapsody supported only two types of binaries -- Classic (non-ported Classic Mac OS apps running within a virtual machine, originally called Blue Box, later simply called Classic) and Yellow Box (applications specifically written for Rhapsody, based on the NS framework from the NEXTSTEP/OpenStep era. Yellow box is now known as Cocoa). Carbon was created to allow something no previous Apple Macintosh OS attempt had - an easy upgrade/porting path. Apple cleaned up the Mac APIs and supported them on both Classic Mac OS versions (starting with Mac OS 8.6) and on Mac OS X. The average developer now only had to modify 1% - 5% of his code to make it run on both Mac OS X and Classic Mac OS.

      When Apple decided to release the source to the OS's internals, they replaced the Rhapsody name with Darwin. Today the current version of Mac OS X is 10.1, aka Darwin 1.3.1.

    3. Re:Apple LIED to you. by green+pizza · · Score: 2

      Whoops, typo.

      Copland came close to being finished, Apple had released an early developer release (DR0) to select developers and had already started a Mac OS 9 marketing campaign.

      That should be "Mac OS 8".

    4. Re:Apple LIED to you. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Today the current version of Mac OS X is
      >10.1, aka Darwin 1.3.1.

      10.0 was Darwin 1.3.1
      10.1 is Darwin 1.4.1

    5. Re:Apple LIED to you. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, Rhapsody and Openstep are different. Openstep was a Mach 2.5+ kernel with BSD 4.3 UNIX layer. Rhapsody was Mach 2.5++ kernel with a BSD 4.4 UNIX layer. There were so many differences between the two at the OS level that they should be considered two different OS's.

    6. Re:Apple LIED to you. by DavidRavenMoon · · Score: 1
      Remember Gil saying at WWDC 1997 that all machines sold by Apple in 1997 would run the new Rhapsody OS? (mac OS X)

      No, no, no! Rhapsody was to be System 8 (not to be confused with Mac OS 8... not the same thing at all)... and as several people have pointed out, OS X, is not Rhapsody.

      The closest thing we have to Rhapsody would probably be OS 9 (since a lot of technology invented for Rhapsody made it's way into OS 8.x and above) and 9 does run on all PCI Macs.

      Just as a side note, OS 8, was originally named System 7.7, at least from the beta I had of it. I guess they changed the name to OS 8 because they killed the Rhapsody project...

      --
      -- if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic - Lewis Carrol
    7. Re:Apple LIED to you. by DavidRavenMoon · · Score: 1
      oops! I said Rhapsody was System 8... but that was Copeland.. I forgot that one :-\

      --
      -- if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic - Lewis Carrol
    8. Re:Apple LIED to you. by green+pizza · · Score: 2

      >>Today the current version of Mac OS X is
      >>10.1, aka Darwin 1.3.1.
      >
      >10.0 was Darwin 1.3.1
      >10.1 is Darwin 1.4.1

      Oops, another typo. That is correct. 10.1 is Darwin 1.4.1.

    9. Re:Apple LIED to you. by green+pizza · · Score: 2

      Actually, Rhapsody and Openstep are different. Openstep was a Mach 2.5+ kernel with BSD 4.3 UNIX layer. Rhapsody was Mach 2.5++ kernel with a BSD 4.4 UNIX layer. There were so many differences between the two at the OS level that they should be considered two different OS's.

      That is 100% correct. I appologize for any confusion I may have made in my inital post. Rhapsody grew from Openstep and while similar, is quite a bit different.

  50. found it by TotallyUseless · · Score: 2

    for those interested, and unable to access the macnn site, visit this link. Seems to work nicely. Mucho thanks to Andrew Welch for being the smartey man he is

    --

    Time for some tasty Shiner Bock!
  51. Under attack? A small text mirror... by SilentChris · · Score: 2

    Since the board site claims to be "under attack" (never knew "attack" meant "Slashdotted") I found a text-based version of the buffer hack in the newsgroups. Have a read.
    Here's a great tip by Andrew Welch, of Ambrosia Software :

    The window server has a cool feature in OS X 10.1 that isn't enabled by
    default (though it will be in an upcoming update, as I understand it): window
    buffer compression.

    A little background. Under OS X, the contents of each window are saved in a
    buffer, so that they can be updated instantly, and also so that the cool
    transparency effects in Aqua are possible. This is a good thing, to have a
    fully buffered window manager -- however, it uses a lot of memory.

    In 32 bit mode ("Millions" in System Preferences), a window that is 800
    pixels wide by 600 pixels high uses up 1.9mb of RAM. When you consider that
    there are usually over 100 windows open when you're using OS X (not all
    windows are visible), you start to realize that this can start to add up in
    terms of RAM usage.

    The more windows you open, the more RAM they use up, the more that virtual
    memory will have to page in and out while you use your applications to do
    work. This can cause slow-downs as the disk grinds to do the virtual memory
    paging.

    So what Apple did was they implemented a compression mechanism into the
    window server. When a window's contents haven't changed for a given period of
    time, the window server compresses them, so they take up less memory. Since
    it uses a compression method that doesn't require the buffer to be fully
    decompressed to do compositing (dragging a window around, updating the
    screen, etc.), you won't notice a slowdown with this compression turned on.

    In fact, because less memory is being used up by the window buffers, more RAM
    will be available for your applications, with will mean less virtual memory
    paging, and may in fact result in speeding up your machine. Additionally,
    since less data needs to be read (it is compressed, after all!), things like
    updating windows may be faster as well.

    If you are a power user who has lots of windows open, you might consider
    giving this hack a shot. I'm using it, and getting compression ratios of
    about 8.5:1 (in other words, my window buffers are using 8x less RAM than
    they normally would).

    Now then, onto the hack! First, open up the Terminal application (found in
    /Applications/Utilities/) and type:

    sudo pico /Library/Preferences/com.apple.windowserver.plist

    (you'll need to enter your admin password in order to proceed)

    Move the cursor down below the first tag, and paste the following text
    in:

    BackingCompression

    compressionScanTime
    5.000000000000000e+00
    minCompressableSize
    8193
    minCompressionRatio
    1.100000023841858e+00

    Then hit Control-X to exit pico (hitting the Y key to save the changes before
    exiting when it asks you), then log out and back in again, and ta da!
    Compressed window buffers. Enjoy...

    If you want to verify that your window compression is working, install the OS
    X 10.1 developer tools, and run the QuartzDebug app
    (/Developer/Applications/), then click on the "Show window list" button.

    Windows that have compressed buffers will have a C next to the size of the
    window's buffer in the kByte column of the window list.

    Some people are a bit concerned that enabling this compression might slow
    things down; that's actually not true. It will actually be faster, for the
    two reasons I mentioned. First, less swapping (which will happen somewhat,
    regardless of how much RAM you have).

    Secondly, consider that most modern CPUs are memory bandwidth-bound. When you
    need to update a window with a 200K buffer, you have to read in 200K of data,
    then write out 200K of data.

    The vast majority of the time spent doing this copying involves the CPU just
    sitting and spinning waiting for data. If you use the compressed buffer, and
    a reasonable 10:1 compression ratio, you only need to read in 20K of data,
    running it by a simple algorithm, and write out 200K of data.

    Since your are 10x less memory bound, and since you're using CPU cycles that
    would have been wasted anyway, you are faster. This is the same principle
    behind RLE blitters, etc.

    --

    Regards

    Roo

  52. I'll chip in too... by A_Non_Moose · · Score: 2

    I saw macosxhints.com, but macosxapps.com was missing from the roster.

    Let's see:
    Macosxapps.com
    macsurfer.com (best place for links to other mac news sights)
    www.osx-zone.com is good for filtered "quickies".
    www.securemac.com for obvious reasons.
    www.greasydaemon.com for *any* *BSD based os.
    arstechnica.com (Mac, PC, Linux forums rock, IMO).

    And for the PC side.
    www.98lite.net (98se running the 95b shell...fast as all get out for windows. Need USB support of 98? Slow computer...get this.)
    www.winguides.com for info on all the Win OS's
    arstechnica.com, redundant, I know, but the sight and forums rock...mac or pc, don't matter. If you don't waste a full day at that site on a first visit...you ain't a tech :)
    www.tech-report.com decent site, some like, some don't. cool, check it out just in case.

    Agnostic type sights (always refreshing).

    slashdot.org (chuckle, you knew it was coming)
    www.osopinion.com
    www.osnews.com (just found it recently, no opinion, yet)

    Oh, and for all you Mac ppl out there, don't forget macslash.com (links are good and news too...based on /code, naturally).

    For everybody: www.macdesktops.com and desktopia.com (good site, but annoying popups recently).

    Have fun, dudes and dudettes.

    Moose.

    --
    Have you read the moderator guidelines? Well, have you, PUNK? (and I want a Karma: Gnarly option)
    1. Re:I'll chip in too... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't forget Revenge of Mozilla II, by B. Jensen for a *free* hack of the 98 to 95 shell.

      Unfortunately the author recently got married, lost interest in the project and got tired of answering posts from the clueless, so the main ROM site is a 404. The files can still be had if you look.

  53. The Hack by partridge · · Score: 1

    Since the Macnn forums seem to be slashdotted, I tracked this down at macosxhints.com
    Now then, onto the hack! First, open up the Terminal application (found in /Applications/Utilities/) and type:
    sudo pico /library/preferences/com.apple.windowserver.plist
    (you'll need to enter your admin password in order to proceed).
    Move the cursor down below the first dict tag, and paste the following text in:
    keyBackingCompression/key
    dict
    keycompressionScanTime/key
    real5.000000000000000e+00/real&# 062;
    keyminCompressableSize/key
    integer8193/integer
    keyminCompressionRatio/key
    real1.100000023841858e+00/real&# 062;
    /dict
    Then hit Control-X to exit pico (hitting the Y key to save the changes before exiting when it asks you), then log out and back in again, and ta da! Compressed window buffers. Enjoy...

  54. It's possible to get this going under Linux... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    If we use a recursive algorithm and modify the deflector shield this will be possible under Linux. Also, by ramdomly alternating the CPU frequencies we'll defeat the bottlenecks for even more performance gain.

    Kudos to me!

    AC

  55. MacNN??!?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    MacNN actually has useful and relevant Mac stuff now???!!?!

    1. Re:MacNN??!?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please shove a splintered baseball bat up your ass now. Thanks.

    2. Re:MacNN??!?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      guess this MacNN mod didn't appreciate the truth

  56. Nvidia cards by Ukab+the+Great · · Score: 2

    I've heard that Nvidia cards do something very similar. I read awhile back on a games developer mailing list that NVidia's scheme has game video data compressed and sent in compressed form to the card (which does the decompression nice and fast in hardware). Supposedly this saves AGP bus bandwidth. I'm not sure if this is true, but if it is, it would explain why Nvidia refuses to open source their drivers for linux--they're trying to protect their compression algorithms needed to communicate with the card.

    1. Re:Nvidia cards by BJH · · Score: 1

      [Sigh]

      Hardly.

      Testure compression is very common on video cards these days - it's certainly nothing to close drivers over.

  57. ahahahaha by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    poor MacNN. they have been having huge troubles with their boards lately. they are very slow, and MacNN basically just can't handle the data load.

    and then Slashdot links to them...

  58. Re:Under attack? A small text mirror... by MoNickels · · Score: 2

    Did you even look at your post? You're missing vital tags!
    <BR>
    <BR>The correct item to past is:
    <BR>
    <BR>&#60;key&#62;BackingCompression&#60;/key&#62 ;
    <BR>
    &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &#60;dict&#62;
    <BR>
    &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &#60;key&#62;compressionScanTime&#60;/key&#62;
    <BR>
    &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &#60;real&#62;5.000000000000000e+00&#60;/real&#62;
    <BR>
    &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &#60;key&#62;minCompressableSize&#60;/key&#62;
    <BR>
    &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &#60;integer&#62;8193&#60;/integer&#62;
    <BR>
    &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &#60;key&#62;minCompressionRatio&#60;/key&#62;
    <BR>
    &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &#60;real&#62;1.100000023841858e+00&#60;/real&#62;
    <BR>
    &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &#60;/dict&#62;

    --

    Wordnik, a dictionary project which aims to collect

  59. Re:Will this work on my Apple //e Platinum Edition by sv0f · · Score: 2

    Yes, but you'll need the 80 column card with the extra 16K of RAM if you want a satisfying user experience.

    -- Steve

  60. Re:Mac Weenies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You must, I repeat, MUST fuck yourself with a splintered baseball bat. Thanks.

  61. LowEndMac by Lord+Vipor+Scorpion · · Score: 1

    lowendmac.com has the most insight into this sort of thing, although he's still working with MacII & 68x000s, so it might take a while for the detailed info on OSX to come out. OTOH, he's always talking about his titanium powerbook (& how it's a bit off).

  62. Re:apple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You. Selling your ass for a quarter in the meatpacking district of NYC when you SHOULD be at home fucking yourself with a splintered baseball bat. Thanks.

  63. OS X on BeBox? by Rog7 · · Score: 1

    Of course this brings up talk again of OS X on Intel, which personally I think is a bit of a stretch, but what about OS X on PPC hardware not made by Apple?

    I'm thinking that this could add some extra life to a few dual-PPC BeBox machines out there. Is it feasible?

    1. Re:OS X on BeBox? by gig · · Score: 2

      The Nintendo Game Cube also uses PowerPC processors, but you wouldn't expect to run Mac OS X on it. Same with BeBoxes, IBM's workstations, Kodak cameras, etc. You need all kinds of stuff beyond the same CPU.

  64. Inanition setting in... need dinner by Lord+Vipor+Scorpion · · Score: 1

    Crap, I hate to get pedantic on myself, but I meant 680x0. First computer I ever saw Linux on was a 68040. I though my friend had ruined a perfectly good Mac. BTW, don't Palms run on 68000s? I might check out Palm Linux after all.

    1. Re:Inanition setting in... need dinner by sh00z · · Score: 1
      BTW, don't Palms run on 68000s?
      Nope, Dragonball.
    2. Re:Inanition setting in... need dinner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Put your ass in the know before commenting.

      The "Dragonball" is an MC68328. It's a low power 68000 processor with integrated LCD Controller. If rumours concerning future processors are still true, Palm will have to do an OS port of PalmOS to the ARM from 68k like Apple did with MacOS when they went from 680X0 to PPC.

      150373

  65. Watch out when pasting pointy-brackets! by Slur · · Score: 1

    Seems the XML you included in your post has been munged by the presence of those pointy-brackets. Everything in-between them got extracted by the Slashdot posting engine. Fortunately an earlier post has the correct code...

    --
    -- thinkyhead software and media
  66. Another set of tips. by Foamy · · Score: 1
    Found this forum thread and there are lots of good tips 10.1 Tricks and Secrets

    E.g. Hold down the option key and scrolling is twice as fast.

    Hold down option key and click anywhere in the scroll bar and it takes you there.

    Option backspace deletes whole words.

    Command+Shift and click a link in IE and it opens the new window behind the current one.

  67. Or.. by Garinwirth · · Score: 1

    What about the Briq?

    Not that I could afford one.

    --

    My IP is 192.168.1.100 Hack it if you want.
  68. Umm.. OPENSTEP? by itomato · · Score: 1
    It's out. Been out.

    Hell, I bet, with the source, and the last version of ProjectBuilder that would build M68K code, you could build OS X Server.. A Dimension, cool as it is, would have a helluva time doing Quartz, unless they wrote a *very* optimized window server.. My guess is that 10.X is out..

  69. RAM for older macs by The+OPTiCIAN · · Score: 1

    I can get in touch with people who need RAM for old 9600s/8400s/etc that they're upgrading into OS X machines. There's a workshop attached to Bond Uni in Australia who do tha sort of work. So you can use that to find them, or contact me and I'll get you in touch.

    --


    Believe with me, my saplings.
    1. Re:RAM for older macs by The+OPTiCIAN · · Score: 1

      Gee that was pretty shockingly worded. What I mean is, I can get people who need the RAM in touch with a group of people who make it. (I don't have a financial interest, I don't even live in that state)

      --


      Believe with me, my saplings.
  70. How could you find this? by mr100percent · · Score: 2

    How can you find some extra feature buffer compression like this? Running 'strings' wouldn't turn up this little tidbit, and the line in the preferences file for this is empty, how can you discover this?

  71. New version available by klui · · Score: 1

    There's a new version available. 2.0b4 at the same site. It's a nice piece of software, especially his L2CacheConfig utility that enables 3rd-party L2 caches for CPU upgrades.

  72. Speed tips. by A_Non_Moose · · Score: 3, Informative

    These Helped the subsystems more than the gui, but I highly recommend it...YMMV, of course.

    Ok, enable root via the Netinfo manager.
    enable other logins in sys prefs (assuming 10.1 installed)...

    Now logout and login as root and in the /System/Library/StartupItems are several things you can/shoud get rid of to reduce memory/CPU load on older macs:
    1) Sendmail (why is this loaded and no way to turn it off via scripts?...at least that I have found).
    2) NFS..this loads FOUR times, but if you do not mount network file systems..again...why?

    As root you can create a startup disabled folder and just drag these folders in there an reboot. Or in the terminal do a ps -aux | grep sendmail (or nfs) and get the PID's and kill -9 (the PID).

    It kind of irks me (this is no OS specific, mind you) that these programs load when I don't need/want them. Granted, I may in the near future, but every other options in os X is loadable/unloadable via a control except sendmail and NFS.

    How many new OS X users are going to be spam relays w/o knowing it? Could this be a vulnerability (actual/potential).

    (humph...as an aside, you mean to tell me sharing all those links in a previous post did not inform anyone? Pique a little interest?
    Oh, well, I tried...just like here)

    Moose.

    --
    Have you read the moderator guidelines? Well, have you, PUNK? (and I want a Karma: Gnarly option)
  73. Relative performance to iMac 500MHz by klui · · Score: 1
    I got a chance to do a seat-of-the pants comparison between my 8500 w/ G3@466MHz and an iMac 500MHz box. The 8500 was running 10.1 and Quartz compression while the iMac was running 10.0.4 stock. 8500 was using the onboard video which means no graphics acceleration exists.


    The iMac was smoother than the 8500 in almost all respects. This smoothness and quickness was especially evident when I launched Apple System Profiler, selected the Extensions tab and paged up/down this list. The 8500 would wait a while before it displayed the next page while the iMac did the same thing without any hesitation. Bus speed may also contribute to the performance difference--the 8500's bus runs at 45MHz.

  74. old skool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    so when will it be ported to my Mac Plus and PowerBook 520?

  75. People doing this - HD, ram requirements? by lpontiac · · Score: 2

    I think there's a few suitable old boxes lying around at work, and I'd love to fire up OS X and give it a shot.

    To the people who are already doing this - any idea what I'd be needing in terms of RAM and hard drive capacity, to run OS X in an almost-sane fashion? (read: I can bring the OS up and load a text editor without waiting 5 minutes for the text editor to load)

    I'd go read the side of the OS X box, but given the CPU/system requirements are only half-true, the rest of it probably is as well..

    1. Re:People doing this - HD, ram requirements? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      That's the rub. You can get OS X running on old boxes, but to be useable, you need to have a few things upgraded. First, I recommend that you upgrade the processor. under 300mhz, IMHO, is just too slow, next get some memory. It is so cheap, there is no reason not to. I think 256Mb is a good place to start. (best place to find memory for older macs, see dealmac.com; search for 168-pin DIMM to find a recent deal $25 for 128MB, and dealram.com)

      That is a good start and you're not in for a lot of $$ at this point.Now depending upon your hard drive size, you might want to get a new one. Again, they are so cheap and Ebay can assist in that respect if needed. Last I would not buy a graphics card unless you really wanted to and even then, see the forums ar www.xlr8yourmac.com before doing so to see what works and what doesn't. Also see Ryan Rempel's pages too.

      So for comparatively little money, you can get an old box running OS X. Less than $200 for processor and RAM, and whatever else you choose to buy. If it is an older Mac, you'll need a carrier card. Card and processor deals I have seen recently as cheap as $129.

      To sum up:
      my personal mimimums are 300mhz, 256MB RAM and 3G HD. That is a good place to start, more is better and you can find all kinds of deals on this stuff. (Personally, I want to buy that dual carrier card and make a dual processor box.)

      Again, before you do anything see www.xlr8yourmac.com

    2. Re:People doing this - HD, ram requirements? by j-beda · · Score: 1
      To the people who are already doing this - any idea what I'd be needing in terms of RAM and hard drive capacity, to run OS X in an almost-sane fashion?

      I think the installer wants a partition of at least 1 gig, I gave it 2. It is reasonably responsive on my 8600/300 with the 604e processor, and a bit better responsive with a G4/400 from XLR8 that I just got. I am still waiting for my copy of 10.1 to make it's way here from Apple, so I don't know if that will be much of an improvement. I am running with about 380 meg of RAM. I think that as waith many unix implementations, the more RAM the better. I would say that probably 128 meg is probably the minimum, with 256 or more being a much better experience.

      There are still some irritating slowness issues with some UI responsiveness, but I am not sure that this is the fault of my machine and not the fault of poor programing choices made by application developers and the Finder programmers.

    3. Re:People doing this - HD, ram requirements? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      jbeda-

      Wait until you see 10.1. **VAST** improvement. my 'unsupported' mac feels like a new computer. I am very happy with 10.1. 10.0.4 was useable, but not fast at all.

  76. Minor correction by droleary · · Score: 1

    Yellow Box (applications specifically written for Rhapsody, based on the NS framework from the NEXTSTEP/OpenStep era. Yellow box is now known as Cocoa)

    Actually, Yellow Box is/was OpenStep for NT, and what is now Cocoa is just a slightly enhanced version of the OpenStep API. All the developers I know that had apps running under the Rhapsody DR releases simply considered them to be OpenStep apps. All the developers I know that had apps running under Yellow Box are cursing Apple for dropping support.

  77. PowerPC 604e 233/DP (Pulsar S900) ? by linkert · · Score: 1

    I have a Pulsar S900 with two processors and I have tried to install OS X - no luck: neither Unsupported Utility nor UnsupportedInstructions seem to work. I thought that thsi might have to do with the Matrox Millenium graphics card. Anyone?

  78. Darwin on old PPC's by cbwsdot · · Score: 1

    Has anyone tried putting Darwin 1.4.1 on older PowerPC's, such as the 6100?

    -Chris

    1. Re:Darwin on old PPC's by Ziwdam · · Score: 1

      AFAIK, work is being done to bring Darwin to Nubus based machines. At least David Gatwood, the main (only?) developer for MkLinux has said that he would like to move some MkLinux code into Darwin (licensing issues?), which means mainly Nubus support, and some Darwin code into MkLinux, which would mean Darwin's Mach microkernel.

      Right now, I don't believe you can run Darwin on x100s, no.

      Another interesting project would be to make Darwin run as a server for the Mach microkernel, and then run the Linux server used in MkLinux next to it!

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education.-Albert Einstein
    2. Re:Darwin on old PPC's by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      MkLinux used MACH 3, and that work should be able to easily be rolled into Darwin for support all the way back to 6100! I ran MkLinux DR3 on a 7100 yrs ago... So there's no reason the MkLinux source code couldn't be modified into Darwin's code base!

      See
      http://www.mklinux.org/

      THIS project just needs volunteers!

  79. not old enough... by Kramer747 · · Score: 0

    I have a powerbook 100, and a Mac Color Classic. They are the sweetes looing things ever, yet I still am unable to find a Unix=like kernal that will run on them! Is there some slimmed down OS X that will run on 6800 processor? I know such things exist for Wintel 286's and such, why is old Mac hardware left in the dust?

  80. Not such an improvement by Jeff+Benjamin · · Score: 1

    With 1 GB of ram installed, it seems to me that compressing the windows is fairly pointless. I believe that the compression slows down more than reading the extra bytes. Probably a hack for those w/ less than 512 MB of ram.

    1. Re:Not such an improvement by DavidRavenMoon · · Score: 1
      With 1 GB of ram installed, it seems to me that compressing the windows is fairly pointless. I believe that the compression slows down more than reading the extra bytes. Probably a hack for those w/ less than 512 MB of ram.

      Give it a try... I have 896 MB and it did make an improvement on my G4/466

      --
      -- if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic - Lewis Carrol
  81. Both Work, But... by Stork33 · · Score: 1

    I'm running Mac OS X 10.1 on an 8600 with a Powerlogix G4/450 CPU daughter card, 750MB RAM, and a Powerlogix USB/Firewire PCI card. Ryan's stuff really works, thank you very much. However, the floppy drive is on his "To Do" list. NBT.

    The compressed windows thingy works! However, use the copy & paste from the MacNN forum link in the original story above. the ones listed above have errors due to Slashdot's html. ***Very Important***

    Thanks for the tips links guys!

  82. Old macs? by andkaha · · Score: 1

    Apaprantly, the submitter of the tidbit and me have different views of what an old Mac is...

    To me, an old Mac is the SE/30 (the last Mac that I owned, and that I was very sad to let go of, it was a really Good Computer). A new Mac is one of those PowerPC thingies.

    --
    It's 11pm, do you know what your deamons are up to?
  83. Re:Will this work on my Apple //e Platinum Edition by shumacher · · Score: 1

    The rumors are that Geos is being reskinned with an Aqua interface. I'd still suggest upgrading your hardware - GS OS X is supposed to be much more feature rich.

  84. Alternative PPC? by vortexau · · Score: 1

    Some are thinking (quietly) that if the AmigaOne
    hardware is brought to market- that other OSes,
    besides AmigaOS4, 4.2, 5+, will run on it!

    The "quietly" is because MacOSes *may* be among the
    'other' OSes!

    Of the hardware, Merlancia's has the highest
    specs-
    Merlancia

    Regards,
    JK

    --
    (David Bowman, EVA near HUGE Monolithic Win-PC in orbit around Jupiter) "My God - its full of Malware!"
  85. Beer vs. Speech by Phrogz · · Score: 1

    Free (as in beer) means it doesn't cost you any money.

    Free (as in speech) describes the state of licensing/legal/censorship issues.

  86. test by aliebrah · · Score: 1

    test

  87. test 2 by aliebrah · · Score: 2

    test 2

  88. I hope your tip works by fractaltiger · · Score: 1

    I'm going to try running through the W98 CD hoping to find this utility just for kicks. If my computer had a few more Gigabytes I would create a virtual-pc hard drive for each major version of my favorite x86 OS.

    I am too new to drive partitions to attempt to screw with my windows box, and virtual-pc has proven safe and simple.

    --
    "Wireless : LAN :: Laptop : Desktop"