From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.vintage

http://morrick.me/archives/9220
--
"Ants never lend, ants never borrow." --unknown
Note: A fixed width font (Courier, Monospace, etc.) is required to see this signature correctly.
/\___/\ Ant(Dude) @ http://aqfl.net & http://antfarm.home.dhs.org.
/ /\ /\ \ Please nuke ANT if replying by e-mail.
| |o o| |
\ _ /
( )
--- Synchronet 3.18c-Linux NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.vintage

In article <X6ydnXue7Jgg5qD9nZ2dnUU7-amdnZ2d@earthlink.com>,
ant@zimage.comANT (Ant) wrote:

http://morrick.me/archives/9220

Snow Leopard was very stable but so was Tiger, if you're going the retro
route I never saw an advantage of Snow Leopard over Tiger as long as you
have a machine that can still run Tiger. With Tiger you have the
advantage of the regularly updated TenFourFox and its better security
than Firefox 45.9 on Snow Leopard. Unfortunately the developer of
TenFourFox doesn't develop for anything past Leopard and the Power Mac
but he must have a good reason.

I do have Snow Leopard on the hard drive of my 2009 iMac (which it
shipped with) but always boot it up in El Capitan on an external SSD,
that seemed like the most stable solution.
--- Synchronet 3.18c-Linux NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.vintage

In message <super70s-C1D707.07185208032021@reader02.eternal-september.org> super70s <super70s@super70s.invalid> wrote:

In article <X6ydnXue7Jgg5qD9nZ2dnUU7-amdnZ2d@earthlink.com>,
ant@zimage.comANT (Ant) wrote:

http://morrick.me/archives/9220

Snow Leopard was very stable but so was Tiger, if you're going the retro route I never saw an advantage of Snow Leopard over Tiger as long as you have a machine that can still run Tiger. With Tiger you have the
advantage of the regularly updated TenFourFox and its better security
than Firefox 45.9 on Snow Leopard. Unfortunately the developer of
TenFourFox doesn't develop for anything past Leopard and the Power Mac
but he must have a good reason.

Nope, the reason is he wants to write for PowerPC.

There are MANY reasons to prefer Snow Leopard over Tiger, but both of
them as so ancient no one should be using either,
--
'What good is a candle at noonday?' --Sourcery
--- Synchronet 3.18c-Linux NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.vintage

In article <slrns4ct35.ero.g.kreme@m1mini.local>,
Lewis <g.kreme@kreme.dont-email.me> wrote:

In message <super70s-C1D707.07185208032021@reader02.eternal-september.org> super70s <super70s@super70s.invalid> wrote:

In article <X6ydnXue7Jgg5qD9nZ2dnUU7-amdnZ2d@earthlink.com>,
ant@zimage.comANT (Ant) wrote:

http://morrick.me/archives/9220

Snow Leopard was very stable but so was Tiger, if you're going the retro route I never saw an advantage of Snow Leopard over Tiger as long as you have a machine that can still run Tiger. With Tiger you have the
advantage of the regularly updated TenFourFox and its better security
than Firefox 45.9 on Snow Leopard. Unfortunately the developer of TenFourFox doesn't develop for anything past Leopard and the Power Mac
but he must have a good reason.

Nope, the reason is he wants to write for PowerPC.

There are MANY reasons to prefer Snow Leopard over Tiger,

Like what, some video conferencing app? Even the OP says that's become outdated on Snow Leopard now.

but both of them as so ancient no one should be using either,

If you can be productive on Snow Leopard or Tiger with apps that won't
run on newer systems that's a reason to use them, there's no law that
says you can't use them and newer systems also.
--- Synchronet 3.18c-Linux NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.vintage

In message <super70s-AEA43D.07522610032021@reader02.eternal-september.org> super70s <super70s@super70s.invalid> wrote:

but both of them as so ancient no one should be using either,

If you can be productive on Snow Leopard or Tiger with apps that won't
run on newer systems that's a reason to use them, there's no law that
says you can't use them and newer systems also.

I did not say there was a law, but no rational person shuld be using an
OS that old and that far out of support. It is foolish, and it is
dangerous to you and to others if you connect machines with known remote exploits to the Internet.

But you be you.
--
'Sometimes there has to be a civil war, and sometimes, afterwards,
it's best to pretend something didn't happen. Sometimes people
have to do a job, and then they have to be forgotten.' --Men at
Arms
--- Synchronet 3.18c-Linux NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.vintage

In article <slrns4hv1m.1egk.g.kreme@m1mini.local>,
Lewis <g.kreme@kreme.dont-email.me> wrote:

In message <super70s-AEA43D.07522610032021@reader02.eternal-
september.org> super70s <super70s@super70s.invalid> wrote:

but both of them as so ancient no one should be using either,

If you can be productive on Snow Leopard or Tiger with apps that won't
run on newer systems that's a reason to use them, there's no law that
says you can't use them and newer systems also.

I did not say there was a law, but no rational person shuld be using an
OS that old and that far out of support. It is foolish, and it is
dangerous to you and to others if you connect machines with known
remote exploits to the Internet.

But you be you.

"Foolish" and "dangerous", lol. TenFourFox gets thousands of downloads
with every update which are very common so many others also like to live dangerously I guess.
--- Synchronet 3.18c-Linux NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.vintage

On 2021 Mar10, Lewis wrote
(in article <slrns4hv1m.1egk.g.kreme@m1mini.local>):

In message<super70s-AEA43D.07522610032021@reader02.eternal-september.org> super70s <super70s@super70s.invalid> wrote:

but both of them as so ancient no one should be using either,

If you can be productive on Snow Leopard or Tiger with apps that won't
run on newer systems that's a reason to use them, there's no law that
says you can't use them and newer systems also.

I did not say there was a law, but no rational person shuld be using an
OS that old and that far out of support.

Hmm. Looks at beige G3, still working, running Jaguar (I put Panther on it once. Bad idea. Put Jag back.) in 768 MB RAM, 20 GB UltraSCSI and 5 GB SATA internal HDD, working floppy drive, working DVD burner, maxed out internal video driving a 20” CRT (yes, a CRT...) and Classic is still up. It also
has a USB 2/FireWire combo card. And certain old hardware is connected via FW to that G3. It’s irrational to want to run old, but still working, and expensive when new 20+ years ago hardware? Tell me more about the universe
you live in. What colour is the sky there?

And, oh, there are also two eMacs which were maxed RAM, maxed HDD, and
running Leopard (can’t run Snow Leo) also operational, feeding various devices... and in use when I want to play the Greatest Tactical Game Of All Time, Harpoon. Long Live the Glorious Red Banner Northern Fleet, Yankee Imperialist carrier battle groups come within Backfire range at their peril!

It is foolish,

nope.

and it is
dangerous to you and to others if you connect machines with known remote exploits to the Internet.

Who said that they’re on a LAN segment which can see outside the building?

But you be you.

You made a number of unsupported, and unsupportable, statements, and several unwarranted assumptions.

--- Synchronet 3.18c-Linux NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.vintage

On 2021 Mar10, super70s wrote
(in article<super70s-4A1A68.17573410032021@reader02.eternal-september.org>):

In article<slrns4hv1m.1egk.g.kreme@m1mini.local>,
Lewis <g.kreme@kreme.dont-email.me> wrote:

In message<super70s-AEA43D.07522610032021@reader02.eternal-
september.org> super70s <super70s@super70s.invalid> wrote:

but both of them as so ancient no one should be using either,

If you can be productive on Snow Leopard or Tiger with apps that won't run on newer systems that's a reason to use them, there's no law that says you can't use them and newer systems also.

I did not say there was a law, but no rational person shuld be using an
OS that old and that far out of support. It is foolish, and it is
dangerous to you and to others if you connect machines with known
remote exploits to the Internet.

But you be you.

"Foolish" and "dangerous", lol. TenFourFox gets thousands of downloads
with every update which are very common so many others also like to live dangerously I guess.

There just aren’t that many exploits out there for old versions of OS X.
And lots of newer stuff will not run on PPC CPUs, they gotta have Intel. And if you segment your LAN you can, if necessary, temporarily let a system see outside the building and then lock it back down... and, frankly, being able
to use certain older, but expensive when new, and not supported beyond Leopard, hardware is worth the risk. No doubt when the last of certain devices, mostly printers, finally dies or when getting toner for them becomes too much of a hassle perhaps I’ll retire to old machines. Maybe. Or perhaps I’ll use ‘em to play Marathon. Or Harpoon. Or both.

--- Synchronet 3.18c-Linux NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.vintage

I am in the process of upgrading my Snow Leopard Xserve.

I am essentually transitioning it to a vanilla Unix environment. This
means building much of the server apps and middleware from open source
such as OpenSSL that is current (the OS-X version on Snow Leopard is no
longer supported by many remote sites), rebuilding middleware such as
PHP, Postfix and Apache. (and to do that, you need to rebuild Perl, and
small items like get-config (sp?) which are used to build the packages.
I now need to look into libxms2 because the PHP build complains about it missing, but may be an option to specify where it is.

Since this is a server, the client apps are not important. And when
Apple purposefully disabled the client server management apps (actually
deleted them during upgrades on other machines), I've learned to manage
the machine at command line.

Ironically, moving all the server software to /user/local via open
source builds is a pre-requisite to ever upgrading OS-X since upgrading
past Snow Leopard removes much of the server stuff which then needs to
be re-installed. However, when the xserve dies, my next server will be
Linux since Apple does not want to be in the server business and is
making it increasingly harder and hardwer to bring in apps from outside
its little app store designed for client, not server

--- Synchronet 3.18c-Linux NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.vintage

In article <Hsu2I.83$GI5.24@fx43.iad>,
JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:

However, when the xserve dies, my next server will be Linux since Apple
does not want to be in the server business and is making it increasingly >harder and hardwer to bring in apps from outside its little app store >designed for client, not server

Why not throw Linux on the Xserve? I dug up my G4 Mac mini a while back
and, after replacing the hard drive (with an SSD) and DVD burner and loading Tiger back on part of the SSD, I used the rest of the space to bring up
Gentoo Linux. It wasn't much more difficult than installing on x86
hardware, other than that you're compiling everything on a processor that's maybe about as fast as a Raspberry Pi 2. That way, your software is as up-to-date as anyone else's, even though you are running on older hardware
(and my sig should make clear I have no issues with older hardware :-) ).

_/_
/ v \ Scott Alfter (remove the obvious to send mail)
(IIGS( https://alfter.us/ Top-posting!
\_^_/ >What's the most annoying thing on Usenet?

--- Synchronet 3.18c-Linux NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.vintage

On 2021-03-11 17:46, Scott Alfter wrote:

Why not throw Linux on the Xserve?

Because that would disrupt service as I boot one or the other. Also, the
Xserve is a dead end as it requires proprietary disks Apple no longer
sells. (the SATA interface may be SATA but lacks negotiation so you
can't put modern drives of identical capacity.


So when I have a new server, I can transfer service by service as
progress in configuring the new server.

--- Synchronet 3.18c-Linux NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.vintage

In message <O4x2I.10$ts5.3@fx46.iad> Scott Alfter <scott@alfter.diespammersdie.us> wrote:

In article <Hsu2I.83$GI5.24@fx43.iad>,

[Apple] is making it increasingly harder and hardwer to bring in apps
from outside its little app store designed for client, not server

Complete and utter horse shit.

Why not throw Linux on the Xserve?

Linux is a reasonable choice for old hardware.

It wasn't much more difficult than installing on x86 hardware, other
than that you're compiling everything on a processor that's maybe
about as fast as a Raspberry Pi 2

I'm not sure any Mac mini was ever quite that slow.
--
Demons have existed on the Discworld for at least as long as the
gods, who in many ways they closely resemble. The difference is
basically the same as between terrorists and freedom fighters.
--- Synchronet 3.18c-Linux NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.vintage

ProductName: Mac OS X Server
ProductVersion: 10.5.8
BuildVersion: 9L34
8:18 up 337 days, 19:47, 1 user, load averages: 0.00 0.00 0.00

el
On 2021-03-11 16:14 , Wolffan wrote:

On 2021 Mar10, Lewis wrote
(in article <slrns4hv1m.1egk.g.kreme@m1mini.local>):

In message<super70s-AEA43D.07522610032021@reader02.eternal-september.org>
super70s <super70s@super70s.invalid> wrote:

but both of them as so ancient no one should be using either,

If you can be productive on Snow Leopard or Tiger with apps that won't
run on newer systems that's a reason to use them, there's no law that
says you can't use them and newer systems also.

I did not say there was a law, but no rational person shuld be using an
OS that old and that far out of support.

Hmm. Looks at beige G3, still working, running Jaguar (I put Panther on it once. Bad idea. Put Jag back.) in 768 MB RAM, 20 GB UltraSCSI and 5 GB SATA internal HDD, working floppy drive, working DVD burner, maxed out internal video driving a 20” CRT (yes, a CRT...) and Classic is still up. It also has a USB 2/FireWire combo card. And certain old hardware is connected via FW to that G3. It’s irrational to want to run old, but still working, and expensive when new 20+ years ago hardware? Tell me more about the universe you live in. What colour is the sky there?

And, oh, there are also two eMacs which were maxed RAM, maxed HDD, and running Leopard (can’t run Snow Leo) also operational, feeding various devices... and in use when I want to play the Greatest Tactical Game Of All Time, Harpoon. Long Live the Glorious Red Banner Northern Fleet, Yankee Imperialist carrier battle groups come within Backfire range at their peril!

It is foolish,

nope.

and it is
dangerous to you and to others if you connect machines with known remote
exploits to the Internet.

Who said that they’re on a LAN segment which can see outside the building?

But you be you.

You made a number of unsupported, and unsupportable, statements, and several unwarranted assumptions.

--- Synchronet 3.18c-Linux NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.vintage

In article <slrns4lntm.27ee.g.kreme@m1mini.local>,
Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.don-t-email-me.com> wrote:

In message <O4x2I.10$ts5.3@fx46.iad> Scott Alfter ><scott@alfter.diespammersdie.us> wrote:

It wasn't much more difficult than installing on x86 hardware, other
than that you're compiling everything on a processor that's maybe
about as fast as a Raspberry Pi 2

I'm not sure any Mac mini was ever quite that slow.

1.5 GHz, 32-bit, single core, maxed out at 1 GB RAM. About the only opportunity for a speedup was replacing the spinning rust with an M.2 SATA
SSD (inside an adapter that converts it to a 2.5" PATA device).
Subjectively, building code on it (which Gentoo does a lot :) ) seems about
as fast as building the same code on my Raspberry Pis. Objectively, I don't have benchmarks that can confirm or deny the assertion, though.

_/_
/ v \ Scott Alfter (remove the obvious to send mail)
(IIGS( https://alfter.us/ Top-posting!
\_^_/ >What's the most annoying thing on Usenet?

--- Synchronet 3.18c-Linux NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.vintage

In article <slrns4ct35.ero.g.kreme@m1mini.local>, Lewis <g.kreme@kreme.dont-email.me> wrote:

In message <super70s-C1D707.07185208032021@reader02.eternal-september.org> super70s <super70s@super70s.invalid> wrote:

In article <X6ydnXue7Jgg5qD9nZ2dnUU7-amdnZ2d@earthlink.com>,
ant@zimage.comANT (Ant) wrote:

http://morrick.me/archives/9220

Snow Leopard was very stable but so was Tiger, if you're going the retro route I never saw an advantage of Snow Leopard over Tiger as long as you have a machine that can still run Tiger. With Tiger you have the
advantage of the regularly updated TenFourFox and its better security
than Firefox 45.9 on Snow Leopard. Unfortunately the developer of TenFourFox doesn't develop for anything past Leopard and the Power Mac
but he must have a good reason.

Nope, the reason is he wants to write for PowerPC.

There are MANY reasons to prefer Snow Leopard over Tiger, but both of
them as so ancient no one should be using either,

Tiger was the first Mac OS I ever used back in 2007, so it has a place
in my heart for sure. I eventually upgraded to Leopard but kinda always
felt Tiger was the nicer version of the OS. Once I got into vintage
Macs, if I was installing a flavour of OSX then Tiger was always my
preference over anything else.

I did eventually upgrade my MacBook to Snow Leopard and used that for
years on end, resisting further upgrades for quite a few revisions.
When I did finally get a new "bleeding edge" Mac Mini around 2016, the
latest OS on it was quite a culture shock!

On balance, I think Tiger was my favourite OSX, it always felt more
comfortable than anything else.
--
Fleet Fellow
--- Synchronet 3.20a-Linux NewsLink 1.114

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.vintage

On 2023-12-22, Stephen Thomas Cole <usenet@stephenthomascole.com> wrote:

In article <slrns4ct35.ero.g.kreme@m1mini.local>, Lewis
<g.kreme@kreme.dont-email.me> wrote:

In message <super70s-C1D707.07185208032021@reader02.eternal-september.org> >> super70s <super70s@super70s.invalid> wrote:

In article <X6ydnXue7Jgg5qD9nZ2dnUU7-amdnZ2d@earthlink.com>,
ant@zimage.comANT (Ant) wrote:

http://morrick.me/archives/9220

Snow Leopard was very stable but so was Tiger, if you're going the retro >> > route I never saw an advantage of Snow Leopard over Tiger as long as you >> > have a machine that can still run Tiger. With Tiger you have the
advantage of the regularly updated TenFourFox and its better security
than Firefox 45.9 on Snow Leopard. Unfortunately the developer of
TenFourFox doesn't develop for anything past Leopard and the Power Mac
but he must have a good reason.

Nope, the reason is he wants to write for PowerPC.

There are MANY reasons to prefer Snow Leopard over Tiger, but both of
them as so ancient no one should be using either,

Tiger was the first Mac OS I ever used back in 2007, so it has a place
in my heart for sure. I eventually upgraded to Leopard but kinda always
felt Tiger was the nicer version of the OS. Once I got into vintage
Macs, if I was installing a flavour of OSX then Tiger was always my preference over anything else.

I did eventually upgrade my MacBook to Snow Leopard and used that for
years on end, resisting further upgrades for quite a few revisions.
When I did finally get a new "bleeding edge" Mac Mini around 2016, the
latest OS on it was quite a culture shock!

On balance, I think Tiger was my favourite OSX, it always felt more comfortable than anything else.

I have no clue what year this message thread surfaced from, but here
goes...

I have a Mac mini partitioned to run both Tiger and Leopard. I believe
Tiger was the last macOS version to support running "Classic" (macOS 9)
apps, and Leopard was the first macOS version to feature Time Machine.

So... There are a few apps on the Tiger side that I believe I "need" in
this day and age, and will actually be using fairly soon, and Time
Machine on the Leopard side, though somewhat unstable, lets me do my
backups.

Jumping forward... On the same table I have a plastic MacBook running
Yosemite. It's able to run El Capitán, but that'sa toooo sloooow.
--
ATTN Google Groups users: I filter out your posts and will not see them. chrispam1@me.com is an infrequently monitored address. Email may get lost.
--- Synchronet 3.20a-Linux NewsLink 1.114

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.vintage

In article <um4trd$90cs$1@solani.org>, Chris Schram <chrispam1@me.com>
wrote:

On 2023-12-22, Stephen Thomas Cole <usenet@stephenthomascole.com> wrote:

Tiger was the first Mac OS I ever used back in 2007, so it has a place
in my heart for sure. I eventually upgraded to Leopard but kinda always felt Tiger was the nicer version of the OS. Once I got into vintage
Macs, if I was installing a flavour of OSX then Tiger was always my preference over anything else.

I did eventually upgrade my MacBook to Snow Leopard and used that for
years on end, resisting further upgrades for quite a few revisions.
When I did finally get a new "bleeding edge" Mac Mini around 2016, the latest OS on it was quite a culture shock!

On balance, I think Tiger was my favourite OSX, it always felt more comfortable than anything else.

I have no clue what year this message thread surfaced from, but here
goes...

Ha, sorry about the thread necromancy. Yeah, it's a 2021 thread... :)

I have a Mac mini partitioned to run both Tiger and Leopard. I believe
Tiger was the last macOS version to support running "Classic" (macOS 9)
apps, and Leopard was the first macOS version to feature Time Machine.

Yup, Tiger was last OSX that ran Classic Mode.

So... There are a few apps on the Tiger side that I believe I "need" in
this day and age, and will actually be using fairly soon, and Time
Machine on the Leopard side, though somewhat unstable, lets me do my
backups.

Jumping forward... On the same table I have a plastic MacBook running Yosemite. It's able to run El Capitán, but that'sa toooo sloooow.

I've got a (2009?) Mac Pro packed away in the shed that I installed El
Capitan to via a firmware hack. It ran it like an absolute champ, used
it as a photo retouching workstation for a couple of years because my
2016 "bleeding edge" Mac Mini struggled with the latest version of
Adobe CC... Interestingly, when I switched out the stock hard drive for
a SSD that problem pretty much disappeared.

Anyway, point I was getting to was that it's impressive how, in
general, Macs have good forward compatibility and will often work fine
with several later generations of OS.
--
Fleet Fellow
--- Synchronet 3.20a-Linux NewsLink 1.114

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.vintage

On 2023-12-23, scole <fleet101k@gmail.com> wrote:

In article <um4trd$90cs$1@solani.org>, Chris Schram <chrispam1@me.com>
wrote:

On 2023-12-22, Stephen Thomas Cole <usenet@stephenthomascole.com> wrote:

Tiger was the first Mac OS I ever used back in 2007, so it has a place
in my heart for sure. I eventually upgraded to Leopard but kinda always
felt Tiger was the nicer version of the OS. Once I got into vintage
Macs, if I was installing a flavour of OSX then Tiger was always my
preference over anything else.

I did eventually upgrade my MacBook to Snow Leopard and used that for
years on end, resisting further upgrades for quite a few revisions.
When I did finally get a new "bleeding edge" Mac Mini around 2016, the
latest OS on it was quite a culture shock!

On balance, I think Tiger was my favourite OSX, it always felt more
comfortable than anything else.

I have no clue what year this message thread surfaced from, but here
goes...

Ha, sorry about the thread necromancy. Yeah, it's a 2021 thread... :)

I have a Mac mini partitioned to run both Tiger and Leopard. I believe
Tiger was the last macOS version to support running "Classic" (macOS 9)
apps, and Leopard was the first macOS version to feature Time Machine.

Yup, Tiger was last OSX that ran Classic Mode.

So... There are a few apps on the Tiger side that I believe I "need" in
this day and age, and will actually be using fairly soon, and Time
Machine on the Leopard side, though somewhat unstable, lets me do my
backups.

Jumping forward... On the same table I have a plastic MacBook running
Yosemite. It's able to run El Capitán, but that'sa toooo sloooow.

I've got a (2009?) Mac Pro packed away in the shed that I installed El Capitan to via a firmware hack. It ran it like an absolute champ, used
it as a photo retouching workstation for a couple of years because my
2016 "bleeding edge" Mac Mini struggled with the latest version of
Adobe CC... Interestingly, when I switched out the stock hard drive for
a SSD that problem pretty much disappeared.

Anyway, point I was getting to was that it's impressive how, in
general, Macs have good forward compatibility and will often work fine
with several later generations of OS.

I have had two old Macs that benefitted wildly from an SSD infusion. I
had an SSD for a while in that plastic MacBook I mentioned above, and it
ran El Capitán at a very acceptable speed. When I eventually upgraded to
new hardware, I reverted it back to the original spinning rust drive,
and downgraded to macOS Yosemite. The SSD then became the Time Machine
volume for the new Mac in the house.

Another story: I had an Intel iMac that ran just fine up until MacOS
Catalina, which brought it to its metaphorical knees. I plugged an SSD
into a Thunderbolt port, making it the new boot drive, and ran with that through another version or two of macOS, until the iMac finally gave up
the ghost.

Yes, SSDs are wondrous things.
--
ATTN Google Groups users: I filter out your posts and will not see them. chrispam1@me.com is an infrequently monitored address. Email may get lost.
--- Synchronet 3.20a-Linux NewsLink 1.114

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.vintage

In article <um69ji$9ljb$1@solani.org>, Chris Schram <chrispam1@me.com>
wrote:

Yes, SSDs are wondrous things.

The machine I'm posting on now, a Power Mac G4 MDD 1.25Ghz, have a pair
of 120GB SSDs hooked to a Sonnet Tempo SATA PCI card. The performance
of this computer (running OS9 and with 1.5GB RAM) is simply phenomenal.
I mean, yeah, it should be, it's an already high-end workstation
further souped up and running an OS that debuted many years before this
kind of machine spec was available. But it's still hellish impressive
to use.

I am refurbishing a Power Macintosh 9600 at the moment, my plan is to
use a SCSI to SD interface and have that as the sole drive in. I guess
we could call that SSD too? I had that arrangement in an LCIII+ a few
years ago, was light years faster than the creaky old SCSI drive that
was in it originally. I've since put that SD card and adapter into an
Apple external SCSI drive unit, which kinda amuses me having such a
clash of technologies in a box.
--
Fleet Fellow
--- Synchronet 3.20a-Linux NewsLink 1.114

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.vintage

In article <241220231153077748%fleet101k@gmail.com>, fleet101k@gmail.com wrote:

I am refurbishing a Power Macintosh 9600 at the moment, my plan is to
use a SCSI to SD interface and have that as the sole drive in. I guess
we could call that SSD too? I had that arrangement in an LCIII+ a few
years ago, was light years faster than the creaky old SCSI drive that
was in it originally. I've since put that SD card and adapter into an
Apple external SCSI drive unit, which kinda amuses me having such a
clash of technologies in a box.

I've found that the newer (and cheaper) blueSCSI devices tend to be faster
than the old scsi2sd devices I would putting in retro macs a few years
ago. They also have wifi now too. I wouldn't consider these devices to be
true SSDs however, more like adapters.

It would be cool if someone made a true SSD to SCSI device, though I don't think it would make any noticable difference on an old mac like the LC
III.
--- Synchronet 3.20a-Linux NewsLink 1.114

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.vintage

In article <denodster-0101241941580001@192.168.1.200>, Denodster <denodster@gmail.com> wrote:

In article <241220231153077748%fleet101k@gmail.com>, fleet101k@gmail.com wrote:

I am refurbishing a Power Macintosh 9600 at the moment, my plan is to
use a SCSI to SD interface and have that as the sole drive in. I guess
we could call that SSD too? I had that arrangement in an LCIII+ a few
years ago, was light years faster than the creaky old SCSI drive that
was in it originally. I've since put that SD card and adapter into an
Apple external SCSI drive unit, which kinda amuses me having such a
clash of technologies in a box.

I've found that the newer (and cheaper) blueSCSI devices tend to be faster than the old scsi2sd devices I would putting in retro macs a few years
ago. They also have wifi now too. I wouldn't consider these devices to be true SSDs however, more like adapters.

I've already got a spare scsi2sd board that I was going to use, but I
might as well get a blueSCSI and give that a try in the 9600. I only
intend to install OS7.6.1 on it, considering that I'm going to have a
G3 or G4 Sonnet CPU in the machine alongside 1.5GB RAM, it's going to b
a hell of a thing.
--
Fleet Fellow
--- Synchronet 3.20a-Linux NewsLink 1.114

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.vintage

In article <denodster-0101241941580001@192.168.1.200>,
denodster@gmail.com (Denodster) wrote:

In article <241220231153077748%fleet101k@gmail.com>, fleet101k@gmail.com wrote:

I am refurbishing a Power Macintosh 9600 at the moment, my plan is to
use a SCSI to SD interface and have that as the sole drive in. I guess
we could call that SSD too? I had that arrangement in an LCIII+ a few
years ago, was light years faster than the creaky old SCSI drive that
was in it originally. I've since put that SD card and adapter into an
Apple external SCSI drive unit, which kinda amuses me having such a
clash of technologies in a box.

I've found that the newer (and cheaper) blueSCSI devices tend to be faster than the old scsi2sd devices I would putting in retro macs a few years
ago. They also have wifi now too. I wouldn't consider these devices to be true SSDs however, more like adapters.

It would be cool if someone made a true SSD to SCSI device, though I don't think it would make any noticable difference on an old mac like the LC
III.

Did you use a new SD card with the BlueSCSI? I'm wondering if it indeed
is faster than, say, a scsi2sd v.5 or it was rather the old install in
the scsi2sd versus a freshly formatted new SD card. (performance is
likely to somewhat degrade over time)

Anyway, would appreciate any info you can give on this. With the new
WiFi capabilities of BlueSCSI, I'm seriously thinking of getting one for
my Mac IIci.
--- Synchronet 3.20a-Linux NewsLink 1.114