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."
Does it run on Yellow Dog G4s ?
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.
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
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.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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
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!
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
... 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.
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).
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.
The compression certainly takes some CPU time, but it's a lot faster than swapping to the hard drive. Hence the overall performance win.
Easy, automatic testing for Perl.
Yep, Ryan Rempel's UUX rocks. I'd like to find a Daystar Genesis MP800+ to try OSX out on... (4 processors, woohoo!)
SIGFEH
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
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Consumer: Windows is too slow on my computer.
.2 is extra.
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
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.
...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
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
And they call Open Source a cancer.... pffft... go figure !
[alk]
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.
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?
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.
> The best release (and free as in beer)
Will someone finally point me to that free beer
open source people are talking about ?
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.
Will it run on my LCII? That's an old machine... :-)
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!
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
How about my Apple ][+ with Zilog Z80 add-in running CP/M? The Zilog rocks!
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.
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;
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.
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.
:)
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.
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!
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;
... 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
...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
Provided you've already upgraded the stock CPU form the 604e era to a g3 or a g4 it is perfectly usable.
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!
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!
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.
/Library/Preferences/com.apple.windowserver.plist
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
(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
I saw macosxhints.com, but macosxapps.com was missing from the roster.
:)
/code, naturally).
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
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)
Since the Macnn forums seem to be slashdotted, I tracked this down at macosxhints.com /Applications/Utilities/) and type: /library/preferences/com.apple.windowserver.plist
/dict
Now then, onto the hack! First, open up the Terminal application (found in
sudo pico
(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;
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...
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.
Did you even look at your post? You're missing vital tags!2 ;
;
;
<BR>
<BR>The correct item to past is:
<BR>
<BR><key>BackingCompression</key
<BR>
<dict>
<BR>
<key>compressionScanTime</key>
<BR>
<real>5.000000000000000e+00</real>
<BR>
<key>minCompressableSize</key>
<BR>
<integer>8193</integer>
<BR>
<key>minCompressionRatio</key>
<BR>
<real>1.100000023841858e+00</real>
<BR>
</dict>
Wordnik, a dictionary project which aims to collect
Yes, but you'll need the 80 column card with the extra 16K of RAM if you want a satisfying user experience.
-- Steve
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).
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?
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.
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
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.
What about the Briq?
Not that I could afford one.
My IP is 192.168.1.100 Hack it if you want.
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..
Rhapsody is not OS X
9 95/q3/950508.pr.rel.copland.html h tml
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/1
http://www.bozosoft.com/copland.html
http://www.macworld.com/1995/04/news/550.html
http://www.macworld.com/2000/09/buzz/windingroad.
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.
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.
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?
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.
These Helped the subsystems more than the gui, but I highly recommend it...YMMV, of course.
/System/Library/StartupItems are several things you can/shoud get rid of to reduce memory/CPU load on older macs:
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
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)
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.
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".
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..
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.
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?
Has anyone tried putting Darwin 1.4.1 on older PowerPC's, such as the 6100?
-Chris
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.
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
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!
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?
-- 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
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.
>>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.
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.
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!"
Free (as in beer) means it doesn't cost you any money.
Free (as in speech) describes the state of licensing/legal/censorship issues.
test
test 2
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