On 7/18/16 8:36 PM, N0body H0me wrote:
>> Which bare board did you see?
>
> Long ago, on "The auction site that must not be named", some guy
> was selling an apple-branded case, with a bare motherboard inside
> (or, perhaps only sparsely populated). The seller stated it was
> the prototype mo
On 19 July 2016 at 16:08, Swift Griggs wrote:
>
> IMHO, it's a PITA and not really worth it.
That's my impression, yes.
> Hardware-based Hackintoshes can
> be fast and somewhat well supported.
I know, because I hackintoshed my PC in London before I left.
It was a decent machine off the local
On Tue, 19 Jul 2016, Liam Proven wrote:
On 19 July 2016 at 15:44, geneb wrote:
You have to patch VMWare to turn on the MacOS support - it's not available
by default.
Ah. Well, since I don't own it and prefer FOSS, I'll stick to
VirtualBox and try to uncover the secret. I know people manage
On Tue, 19 Jul 2016, Liam Proven wrote:
> I've heard that but I have never once got it to work, either in VMware
> or VirtualBox. :-(
IMHO, it's a PITA and not really worth it. Hardware-based Hackintoshes can
be fast and somewhat well supported. You just have to be very careful
about what hardw
On 19 July 2016 at 15:44, geneb wrote:
> You have to patch VMWare to turn on the MacOS support - it's not available
> by default.
Ah. Well, since I don't own it and prefer FOSS, I'll stick to
VirtualBox and try to uncover the secret. I know people manage to do
it.
--
Liam Proven • Profile: ht
On Tue, 19 Jul 2016, Liam Proven wrote:
On 18 July 2016 at 22:50, geneb wrote:
On Mon, 18 Jul 2016, couryho...@aol.com wrote:
Liam, thank you so much for this information!
I did not know about all the HACKINTOSH action out there!
If you've got an Intel cpu, you can run it with VMWare to
On 18 July 2016 at 22:50, geneb wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Jul 2016, couryho...@aol.com wrote:
>
>> Liam, thank you so much for this information!
>> I did not know about all the HACKINTOSH action out there!
>>
> If you've got an Intel cpu, you can run it with VMWare too. :)
I've heard that but I hav
> "Shiner" shipped as the ANS with AIX
>
> http://www.erik.co.uk/ans/
>
> though that isn't what the original "Shiner" was at all.
Chuck Goulsbee talked about a prototype 601 in a Q950 case, but that
sounds like the ancestor to the WGS 9150, not the ANS. Was the
original "Shiner" that system, or
> -Original Message-
> From: a...@bitsavers.org
> Sent: Mon, 18 Jul 2016 12:59:44 -0700
> To: cctalk@classiccmp.org
> Subject: Re: Building the Ultimate Classic Mac.
>
>
>
> On 7/18/16 12:44 PM, N0body H0me wrote:
>
>> I'm astounded. I didn
On 7/18/2016 11:10 AM, Al Kossow wrote:
> you won't find anything on the web about any of this
On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 3:22 PM, ben wrote:
> Can you enlighten the masses, or have you sold your soul to Lucifer
> for this knowlage?
Even worse! It was sold to Apple!
:-)
On 7/18/2016 11:10 AM, Al Kossow wrote:
On 7/18/16 9:11 AM, Liam Proven wrote:
On 18 July 2016 at 17:03, Al Kossow wrote:
"Shiner" started out as an 88110 machine, and some of the architectural
quirks are remnants of that.
This is not enough for me to Google. Could you clarify, please?
On Mon, 18 Jul 2016, couryho...@aol.com wrote:
Liam, thank you so much for this information!
I did not know about all the HACKINTOSH action out there!
If you've got an Intel cpu, you can run it with VMWare too. :)
g.
--
Proud owner of F-15C 80-0007
http://www.f15sim.com - The only one of
Liam, thank you so much for this information!
I did not know about all the HACKINTOSH action out there!
Good to hear that one system will use SATA drive > I will just have to
find some old installable OS for it.
The family of the deceased engineer that passed these on to us at the
SM
On 7/18/16 12:44 PM, N0body H0me wrote:
> I'm astounded. I didn't think any ever made it to prototype or hard-model
> stage! I've seen bare boards for these (up to this point) mythical
> beasts, but never a living, breathing machine. Must have been a piece
> of work. Do any functional machin
> -Original Message-
> From: a...@bitsavers.org
> Sent: Mon, 18 Jul 2016 07:41:10 -0700
> To: cctalk@classiccmp.org
> Subject: Re: Building the Ultimate Classic Mac.
>
>
>
> On 7/18/16 12:38 AM, N0body H0me wrote:
> >The 88k should have
>> been i
On 18 July 2016 at 20:18, wrote:
Ed, *please* will you get a proper email client? They work fine with
AOL mail. I know, I am also liampro...@aol.com & have been for 20y!
>
> will not load curvet os because?
> "This is caused by the lack of the 64 bit EFI bios. The hardware of the
> Mac Pro
On 7/18/16 10:49 AM, Al Kossow wrote:
>
> Give me a while to collect what I have together.
My memory was fuzzy, BLT was a part of "Tesseract", PPC follow-on to
"Hurricane" 88110.
Tesseract became "TNT" ("The New Tesseract" aka the 9500) when Steve Manzer
ordered the
group to use PCI instead o
apples support seems hosed...
Load of URL http://support.apple.com/index.html failed with error code
-310.
but from this page
https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT202888
there is a good guide.
--
this is my 1.1
Mac Pro ---MacPro1,1 --- MA35
Give me a while to collect what I have together. I haven't looked at what paper
documents i still have since the
early 90s. I need to do this since someone I worked with then saved some
prototype 88k CPU boards that I need to give to
CHM. I only know of one 88100 si that survived into this centu
Grabbing the popcorn... :)
Enviado do meu Tele-Movel
Em 18/07/2016 14:27, "Fred Cisin" escreveu:
> you won't find anything on the web about any of this
>>
>
> now you have our attention!
>
>
>
>
you won't find anything on the web about any of this
now you have our attention!
> On 18 Jul 2016, at 18:10, Al Kossow wrote:
>
> you won't find anything on the web about any of this
...which is why this ClassicCMP'er just drew his chair closer and cracked out
the popcorn!
Finding this fascinating, Al. Any time you take to relay your Apple experiences
here is very much
"Shiner" shipped as the ANS with AIX
http://www.erik.co.uk/ans/
though that isn't what the original "Shiner" was at all.
On 7/18/16 10:10 AM, Al Kossow wrote:
>
>
> On 7/18/16 9:11 AM, Liam Proven wrote:
>> On 18 July 2016 at 17:03, Al Kossow wrote:
>>> "Shiner" started out as an 88110 machi
On 7/18/16 9:11 AM, Liam Proven wrote:
> On 18 July 2016 at 17:03, Al Kossow wrote:
>> "Shiner" started out as an 88110 machine, and some of the architectural
>> quirks are remnants of that.
>
>
> This is not enough for me to Google. Could you clarify, please?
>
you won't find anything on th
On 18 July 2016 at 17:03, Al Kossow wrote:
> "Shiner" started out as an 88110 machine, and some of the architectural
> quirks are remnants of that.
This is not enough for me to Google. Could you clarify, please?
--
Liam Proven • Profile: http://lproven.livejournal.com/profile
Email: lpro...@ci
On 16 July 2016 at 07:05, N0body H0me wrote:
> If I wanted the "all in one" experience, I would get the
> SE/30. Once again, these are kinda pricey.
Indeed.
I've seen an argument that the "ultimate" classic Mac experience --
before the colour machines and so on -- would be a maxed-out SE/3
On 16 July 2016 at 09:05, Austin Pass wrote:
> What is it about the Quadra 840 that makes it such a hot shot? I've seen a
> few over the last few years, but all fetch £150+
AIUI it was the fastest ever 68K Mac (in stock form; others can be
overclocked, as has been noted in this thread).
Howev
> > What were some of their issues?
>
> The two big ones were a new, incompatible expansion bus interface (BLT)
> and that it was going to run Pink.
>
> "Shiner" started out as an 88110 machine, and some of the architectural
> quirks are remnants of that.
That is extremely interesting -- was tha
On 7/18/16 7:39 AM, Cameron Kaiser wrote:
> What were some of their issues?
>
The two big ones were a new, incompatible expansion bus interface (BLT)
and that it was going to run Pink.
"Shiner" started out as an 88110 machine, and some of the architectural
quirks are remnants of that.
Going
> > The 88k should have
> > been in RISC-based Mac's. But of course, the 88k's absence was not really
> > Apple's fault, either. Just another example of 'what could have been'.
>
> I worked on Apple's 88K Macs. You wouldn't have liked them.
What were some of their issues?
--
On 7/18/16 12:38 AM, N0body H0me wrote:
>The 88k should have
> been in RISC-based Mac's. But of course, the 88k's absence was not really
> Apple's fault, either. Just another example of 'what could have been'.
>
I worked on Apple's 88K Macs. You wouldn't have liked them.
On 7/17/16 7:57 PM, Jerry Kemp wrote:
> If a critical piece of Mac OS code crossed their path, SheepShaver would be
> their only option.
>
Or MAME
I've been working with them a lot to correctly implement the I/O ASICs
>> On 16 Jul 2016, at 3:33 pm, TeoZ wrote:
>>
>>
>> Most 840av's these days have bad motherboards from leaking capacitors
>> and the plastics break if you sneeze too hard close to them.
>>
>
> Yes, I just gave away my 840av. It was working (and looking) fine a
> couple of years ago, but when I
> Back on topic, many Mac users today would/have stuck their nose up at PPC
> and 68K powered boxes, and don't even acknowledge them. If a critical piece
> of Mac OS code crossed their path, SheepShaver would be their only option.
True, and that's a shame, since Classic happily runs most 68K apps
On 7/17/16 9:23 PM, Cameron Kaiser wrote:
that is interesting to know the old os can be run under the newer.
I am confused on some of the G5 stuff.
there is a real early one that has non intel processor
then there is a 1.1 ( i have one too) but you can not upgrade to the
latest os (bummer)
oppssorry many typos... see clarification interlaced..
In a message dated 7/17/2016 8:04:07 P.M. US Mountain Standard Time,
cmhan...@eschatologist.net writes:
That would be a PowerMac G5. No Power Macintosh has an Intel processor
yes that is first g5 has a more elegant inte
On Jul 17, 2016, at 12:56 PM, couryho...@aol.com wrote:
> that is interesting to know the old os can be run under the newer.
This was a standard feature of Mac OS X on PowerPC hardware from the 10.0
developer builds through 10.4.
> I am confused on some of the G5 stuff.
> there is a real ear
I'm not disagreeing with you. I have multiple PPC Mac's and a couple of
PowerBooks. I'm set.
Apple systems from the past typically had 2 big advantages over windows based
systems.
* significantly easier to administer, and at least some level of stability over
MS code
* Apple systems last
> that is interesting to know the old os can be run under the newer.
> I am confused on some of the G5 stuff.
> there is a real early one that has non intel processor
> then there is a 1.1 ( i have one too) but you can not upgrade to the
> latest os (bummer)
>
> then there is the G% 3 or 3
> And SheepShaver is an option to run Classic/Mac OS apps on Intel based
> Mac OS X boxes.
It's an option, but it's not a very good one. It has various compatibility
issues with certain programs (usually the most interesting/useful ones)
and it does not run anything past 9.0.4. For the programs it
And SheepShaver is an option to run Classic/Mac OS apps on Intel based Mac OS X
boxes.
Jerry
On 07/17/16 02:56 PM, couryho...@aol.com wrote:
that is interesting to know the old os can be run under the newer.
I am confused on some of the G5 stuff.
there is a real early one that has non intel
that is interesting to know the old os can be run under the newer.
I am confused on some of the G5 stuff.
there is a real early one that has non intel processor
then there is a 1.1 ( i have one too) but you can not upgrade to the
latest os (bummer)
then there is the G% 3 or 3.3 dated one
On Jul 15, 2016, at 1:49 PM, Austin Pass wrote:
> I have several G5's, but am at a loss as to what to do with them. If they
> supported classic Mac OS I'd have one up and running in a heartbeat.
You can't boot MacOS 9 on them, but you can run Classic under 10.4 on a G5 and
it screams.
-- Ch
> On 16 Jul 2016, at 3:33 pm, TeoZ wrote:
>
>
> Most 840av's these days have bad motherboards from leaking capacitors and the
> plastics break if you sneeze too hard close to them.
>
Yes, I just gave away my 840av. It was working (and looking) fine a couple of
years ago, but when I checked
On 7/15/16 11:39 PM, Cameron Kaiser wrote:
> You didn't ask, but my preferred heavy duty 68K is the Q800.
Yup, I'd take it over the baroque 840AV any day.
> I'll hit eBay too for some PSU replacements.
There are a few modified aftermarket supplies for the MDD which are also
infinitely more reliable. I have an Antec one around here somewhere. The
lower-watt AcBel units seem more reliable.
> What graphics card do you use, out of interest?
I use an A
From: Cameron Kaiser
Date: 7/15/16 23:39 (GMT-07:00)
To: cctalk@classiccmp.org
Subject: Re: Building the Ultimate Classic Mac.
> I'm toying with putting the "ultimate" classic Mac together, although I'm
> having a little difficulty pinning down the defin
On 16 Jul 2016, at 07:39, Cameron Kaiser wrote:
>> I'm toying with putting the "ultimate" classic Mac together, although I'm
>> having a little difficulty pinning down the definition of what the ultimate
>> representation of the type is, so was looking for a little input from
>> Classic CMP'ers.
> On 15 Jul 2016, at 21:54, Swift Griggs wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 15 Jul 2016, Austin Pass wrote:
>> I'm toying with putting the "ultimate" classic Mac together, although
>> I'm having a little difficulty pinning down the definition of what the
>> ultimate representation of the type is, so was look
> I've never seen a GigE card for OS 9. There is of course 100Mbit support.
> I would love to be proven wrong.
I have been proven wrong.
http://www.everymac.com/mac-answers/mac-os-9-classic-support-faq/gigabit-ethernet-for-macos-9-wireless-pc-cards-macos-9-compatible.html
--
> I'm toying with putting the "ultimate" classic Mac together, although I'm
> having a little difficulty pinning down the definition of what the ultimate
> representation of the type is, so was looking for a little input from
> Classic CMP'ers.
My "heavy duty" OS 9 rig is an dual 1.25GHz MDD that
1:05 AM
To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts
Subject: Re: Building the Ultimate Classic Mac.
If I had the time and money (mostly money) to do this, I
would settle for nothing less than a Quadra 840AV. Be
prepared to spend , though; the 840 is quickly approaching
'invest
ese are kinda pricey.
> -Original Message-
> From: ot...@oryx.us
> Sent: Fri, 15 Jul 2016 16:26:06 -0500
> To: gene...@classiccmp.org
> Subject: Re: Building the Ultimate Classic Mac.
>
> I went thru this exercise myself a couple of years back. Even kicked off
>
I went thru this exercise myself a couple of years back. Even kicked off a
thread on a Mac email list.
I don't/didn't have any experience or background with the Mac on the 68K, so
that didn't come into my decision making.
I ultimately decided that I didn't need the fastest/biggest/most memor
On Fri, 15 Jul 2016, Austin Pass wrote:
> I'm toying with putting the "ultimate" classic Mac together, although
> I'm having a little difficulty pinning down the definition of what the
> ultimate representation of the type is, so was looking for a little
> input from Classic CMP'ers.
I've recen
> On 15 Jul 2016, at 21:15, Al Kossow wrote:
>
>
>
>> On 7/15/16 12:58 PM, Austin Pass wrote:
>> I have a "pinstripe" grey G4 PowerMac with (if memory serves) a 400Mhz CPU -
>> would this be a safer bet?
>
> Yes, that or a slightly faster one. I like the ones where we went with
> gigabit et
Anecdotally, this may be the case. I ran my dual 1.25 MDD for six or seven
years without a single hardware failure. It's probably still fine, but I
haven't tried to turn it on since I upgraded to a Mac Pro (geez, eight years
ago).
ok
bear.
--
Sent from my iPhone
> On Jul 15, 2016, at 13:15,
On Jul 15, 2016, at 2:03 PM, Austin Pass wrote:
….
> Mr Kaiser - is Clasilla still maintained?
….
Yup:
http://www.floodgap.com/software/classilla/
Have not used it, but I am up-to-date on a G3 (iMac) and a G4
(PowerBook) with TenFourFox and use them regularly.
http://www.flo
On 7/15/16 12:58 PM, Austin Pass wrote:
> I have a "pinstripe" grey G4 PowerMac with (if memory serves) a 400Mhz CPU -
> would this be a safer bet?
>
Yes, that or a slightly faster one. I like the ones where we went with gigabit
ethernet (2nd gen G4?)
> Is there any way to underclock the 1.2
I have a "pinstripe" grey G4 PowerMac with (if memory serves) a 400Mhz CPU -
would this be a safer bet?
Is there any way to underclock the 1.25Ghz CPU's in the mirror door for
improved reliability in the mirror door?
We used the MD PowerMac as an OS X 10.3 server running Macintosh Manager
cate
On 7/15/16 12:03 PM, Austin Pass wrote:
> I have a lovely mirror-door G4 PowerMac I'm intending
> to use.
bad idea.
Mirror door G4's were the least reliable machines we released.
Too many compromises getting to a GHz, esp WRT noise and heat.
I personally like Beige G3's, or mid-life G4's for d
I'm toying with putting the "ultimate" classic Mac together, although I'm
having a little difficulty pinning down the definition of what the ultimate
representation of the type is, so was looking for a little input from
Classic CMP'ers.
I'm aware that there's a clear divide between Motorola and Po
62 matches
Mail list logo
