Last (most powerful) mac capable of running system 7?

[supernova777]

i tried to check the technote:
http://support.apple.com/kb/ht1835

but quickly realized that this system 7 compatibility is not indicated there.
so i did a quick search and found this further technote which provides the info i was after!

http://support.apple.com/kb/TA47341

does this mean that the most powerful mac capable of running system 7.5.5
would be the PowerMac 9600? http://www.everymac.com/systems/apple/powermac/specs/powermac_9600_300.html

Introduction Date:    August 5, 1997    Discontinued Date:    February 17, 1998

Expansion Slots:    6 PCI (what a beast!)

[supernova777]

these systems can be upgraded to a g4 cpu probably too right?
whats the highest upgrade cpu? 1ghz?

http://www.everymac.com/upgrade_cards/by_system/powermac_pci.html
from this page i see: g3 800mhz from powerlogix
http://www.everymac.com/upgrade_cards/powerlogix/powerforce_g3/powerforce_g3_800.html

[IIO]

that wont help you. if you add a G4 upgrade, that will have its own minimum requirement. which is, to my knowlegde, usually 9.2.1.

but i am not sure about G3 processors from apple powermacs? shouldnt they be able to run 755 or 760? eventually without ethernet though.

however, there are clones from this decade which are faster than the 9600. the fastet clone was a dual 240 MHz 604e, but dont ask me for the name.

[supernova777]

hmm i had forgot about the clones that were being made.. this was around 96-97 right?

did these clones have serial ports (geoport) ?

[Mat]

that wont help you. if you add a G4 upgrade, that will have its own minimum requirement. which is, to my knowlegde, usually 9.2.1.

For the Sonnet "Crescendo PCI" the minimum requirement is Mac OS 7.5.2. See the manual  http://www.sonnettech.com/support/kb/kb.php?cat=319&expand=&action=a1#a1
For sure if you like to make use of Altivec in your G4, you need at least Mac OS 9.1. And remember that Mac OS 8.6 was the first real clean PPC OS, previous versions still had some 68k code. And finally remember that the "Oldworld macs" cannot use 9.2.x without 3rd party "OS9helper" application. So all the upgrades for the Oldworld machines work at least with 9.1

Sonnet always made highly compatible upgradecards. I use myselfe a 9600 with Sonnet G4/800 as main machine.

however, there are clones from this decade which are faster than the 9600. the fastet clone was a dual 240 MHz 604e, but dont ask me for the name.

Depends on what you are trying to do. I had an UMAX Pulsar (sold as S900 in North America) for several years. And with the stock dual CPU of the UMAX with 240 MHz the 9600 with 350 MHz was a lot faster, except some dualprocessing optimised programs like Photoshop.

[supernova777]

are there many programs that work in system 7 that do not work in 8 or 9?

[IIO]

@mat: like photoshop ... and was about to say ... or like cubase ... but i forgot that cubase with DP support did not run on 7.6 anyway.

no idea how many OS7 programs do not work in 8.6+. there is not much what has been removed or replaced from these times to OS 8.9.

but many OS7 programs dont behave very good in later systems when it comes to changing screensize or color mode.

and what i really hate is those older installers of many audio apps or games which overwrite your extensions even when they are older. i recently clicked on some 100 kb util and now i have quicktime 2 installed side by side with quicktime 6 (whose extension i, wise as i am, renamed, but it is still a mess.)

generally, if you want a working OS9 system, one should try to avoid both, 68k code and – otoh – carbon apps. which is why you are right when you try to install an OS7.5 in addition wherever possible.

[supernova777]

my interest is to do with a box that would be perfect for music apps from 1992-1996
that may, as u said, work better on system 7 rather then os 8 or os 9.

that and the fact that although these machines have lower resources for audio processing
according to some material i was reading, they may in fact be better for midi!!!!!!!!

i have been reading about how they did the midi processing with some type of on the fly cpu intensive code conversion happening on a micro level.. ive quoted the material
below, but basically it eludes to the underying midi system code being in 68k code that was never updated.. and instead they wrote some sort of conversion driver to keep the 68k code in ppc...
which would ultimately mean worse midi timings & performance on any ppc mac then on a 68k mac!!!!!!!!

read more here; article;  Last updated:15 April 1999
http://web.archive.org/web/19990505184713/http://www.hinton.demon.co.uk/mac/macmidi.html
parent page: http://web.archive.org/web/20000607173136/http://www.hinton.demon.co.uk/hintmain.html

about Hinton Instruments

The company was started in 1984 by Graham Hinton who had previously worked as a design engineer with Solid State Logic, Research Machines and EMS on many world leading products. The aim was to meet the needs of discerning professionals not catered for by large companies especially for, but not limited to, professional applications of MIDI and Studio Automation. A policy of direct sales and zero hype enables advanced products to be made available to the end user with maximum value for money.

The first product was the MIDIC intelligent MIDI/RS232 interface (now over fourteen years old and still going) and has since expanded to include many MIDI Management and Automation devices for the professional recording market unavailable elsewhere at any price. A non-compromising design approach and attention to detail are standard, often imitated - never equalled.
Design consultancy work is also undertaken for other companies. It is presently located in rural Somerset close to The Wool Hall recording studios.
All material on these pages Copyright ©1995-1999 Hinton Instruments.

The Problem
The original Macintosh only had two serial ports and only ran one application at a time. Although it had an advanced USART, the Zilog Z8530 SCC, it was incapable of being set to the correct baud rate for MIDI use so an external clock had to be supplied. The SCC was also the poor relation in terms of interrupting the CPU and there were some strange tricks to keep it working during disk accesses. As the Macintosh design advanced the serial communications capability did not improve correspondingly and even got worse. With the introduction of System 7 when multitasking was no longer optional and the increase in demand in serial communications for the Internet, the Printer and Modem ports became oversubscribed.

To meet the demand for more and more MIDI ports the "Multiport Interface" evolved, but this brought a whole new range of problems. All data passing through them was delayed (twice if coming in and then out) and a bottleneck was created between the interface and the serial port. The larger the system and the more MIDI traffic the worse the performance.

From the time of the Centris 660av (http://www.everymac.com/systems/apple/mac_centris/specs/mac_centris_660av.html) through to the Power Macintosh 8100/110 (circa 93-94 http://www.everymac.com/systems/apple/powermac/specs/powermac_8100_110.html) the SCC was integrated into an Apple ASIC with a DMA controller supported by a SerialDMA driver. However the first design was flawed and it is essential to ensure that SerialDMA 2 is used. Later Power Macintoshes up to the beige G3s have an improved ASIC (Application Specific Integrated Circuits). For the full story lookup Technote 1018 on Apple's web site. (http://www.fenestrated.net/~macman/mirrors/Apple%20Technotes%20%28As%20of%202002%29/tn/tn1018.html) To make matters worse the SerialDMA bugs were especially bad for high data rates with Xon/Xoff handshaking which is just what the Multiport Interfaces require. This episode led to to all sorts of myths like "MIDI can only work on one port on a Power Mac".

On early (<100MHz) Power Macintoshes (powered by POWERPC cpu http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Macintosh_models_grouped_by_CPU_type#PowerPC_601) much of the serial support was still 68k code run under emulation so it was actually running slower than on the models it superceded. Even on later Power Macintoshes and even with OS 8.5 which is "95% native" the Device Manager serial support is still 68k code. Every time the PPC switches between 68k code and native code up to 50 microseconds is wasted (depending on model and OS version) and this may happen several times for every MIDI byte transmitted and received. This can seriously limit the CPU bandwidth available for other important tasks like audio processing.

Although modern computers are very good at processing large amounts of data at high rates they only do it on their own terms. They can handshake and retry when an error occurs and normally the user is unaware that this is even happening. However they are still poor at handling single events where there is no chance of a second try which is exactly what MIDI requires.

Apple's bombshell this year has been to throw away asynchronous serial communications altogether and to tell everybody to use USB while they had not yet been able to supply an USB Driver with a granularity of better than 4ms - which although adequate for computer devices is of no use for MIDI. A new driver was promised for "Spring" which has been further delayed now until "Summer" and even if the granularity is improved to the theoretical minimum of 1ms it is doubtful if this will be enough for serious MIDI usage, especially if timecode synchronisation is required as well.

The Solution
The solution has always been obvious - get more ports directly onto the main CPU bus, get rid of software routing devices and try to get a Note On from one place to another within 1 millisecond as originally intended.

Previous attempts to provide more ports on NuBus cards on 68k Macs failed to have suitable performance for MIDI applications. Now MegaWolf Inc. have introduced a PCI card with highly specified UARTs and fully native PPC software support so now the question is: "Why is MIDI timing on a Mac so good?" and the answer is: Romulus & Remus PCI Serial Port Cards

clearly they are trying to sell the cards by megawolf.. but surely there must be some truth to the argument?
and its saying that somehow the problem is circumvented + Avoided by using the megawolf cards?

but im still trying to make 100% sense of what they said about the other macs
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Macintosh_models_grouped_by_CPU_type
http://www.everymac.com/systems/apple/powermac/index-powermac.html
http://www.everymac.com/systems/apple/powermac_g3/index-powermac-g3.html

my summary of what i understood from the above article:
----from centris 660av through to the powermacintosh 8100/110---
-there was a prob from this range of macs (not sure if this range of macs is by model # or introduction date i have assumed date??)(July 1993-March 1994 according to cross reference of article to the list of cpu type a few lines above!)
regarding this serialDMA driver version (2 being better then 1 which faulty)
which means that macs from just before this small range (July 1993-March 1994) may have better "more native" midi timing due to its 68k cpu natively running the midi subsystem code
such as a QUADRA 800 (Feb93) http://www.everymac.com/systems/apple/mac_quadra/specs/mac_quadra_800.html
or Quadra 950 (May92) http://www.everymac.com/systems/apple/mac_quadra/specs/mac_quadra_950.html

- and the ones that come after have a different implementation as well...  this serialdma problem was engineered differently (avoiding the problem) beginning with the models
 that followed the power macintosh 8100(110mhz).. which basically would be any mac with cpu PowerPC 604 and up+ thru and up to the beige g3s March 1994-January 1999

http://hinton-instruments.co.uk/reference/midi/promidi/index.htm
http://hinton-instruments.co.uk/reference/midi/promidi/pg05.htm
http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/dec07/articles/cubasetech_1207.htm

is there much to this??? there has always been legend + myth surrounding the old atari systems for midi... some of that "aww" was transfered to the mac when these programs were coded for the 68k macs..something maybe got lost since this original 68k adaptation? fact or fiction?   only the brave obsessed + crazy 1s will know for sure;)

[supernova777]

so after all of that midi investigation.....
if my goal is to find the ultimate tightest midi timing on the macintosh...
it seems i should be asking myself which is the most powerful 68k mac
rather then which is the most powerful mac that was still capable of running system 7..
if what this article from hinton instruments says is correct!
http://www.applefritter.com/node/6931

according to thread:
Quadra 840AV http://www.everymac.com/systems/apple/mac_quadra/specs/mac_quadra_840av.html
or Quadra 900 http://www.everymac.com/systems/apple/mac_quadra/specs/mac_quadra_900.html


which brings about a new question
i wonder which is the highest version of logic or cubase that will run on an oldschool 68k mac!

which leads back to the other thread: http://macos9lives.com/smforum/index.php?topic=1197.0

and the investigation of the transition from 68k to ppc itself:
http://www.storiesofapple.net/the-68k-ppc-transition-and-snow-leopard-comparing-apples-to-oranges.html

The Mac OS 8.5 was surely the end of Mac based on the 68k family of processors, but Apple kept on making and selling machines based on this hardware platform long after the release of the Power Mac 6100 in March 1994.

PM 6100 with monitorMacs such as the PowerBook 280 and the Quadra/LC 630 were launched during 1994 and even the following year, in the April and August of 1995 Cupertino introduced non-PowerPC models such as The Performa 580 and the PowerBook 190cs.

And those Macs were not “supported mostly via emulation in a PowerPC environment”. It was the way around: Macintoshes based on the PowerPC chips had to use emulation to be compatible with the (operating) System (which was later called Mac OS), which was still full of 68×000 code.

[supernova777]

here we go:
https://68kmla.org/forums/archive/topic.asp.TOPIC_ID=4899.html

posts on this thread claim v4 of logic will work on a 68k mac
maybe then 4.7+ will aswell!

As for sequencing Emagic's "LOGIC Audio" still runs well on older macs
when used in MIDI only mode (ie no hard disk recording - just
sequencing)

also this stuff predates OMS + FREEMIDI im pretty sure??

[MacTron]

according to thread:
Quadra 840AV http://www.everymac.com/systems/apple/mac_quadra/specs/mac_quadra_840av.html
or Quadra 900 http://www.everymac.com/systems/apple/mac_quadra/specs/mac_quadra_900.html

I have used Logic Audio 3 in a Quadra 840av (overclocked to 96 Mhz) that still I have. I've kept in using the 840av until I could buy a PM8500av. Despite the fact that I always hate the user Interface of Logic (why DAWs has to have an "Alien" interface?) I felt it way faster on the 840av (Logic 3 68k) than in the PM8500 (Logic 3 PPC). I also like the fact that version 3 can be fixed to run without dongle or dongle emulator

[supernova777]

so its true then.. u can remember the midi feel was more tight/quicker on the quadra?

[IIO]

chris if you want something good for midi i´d recommend an atari. and thats no joke. cubase 2.0 mac will not give you anything which could be better than VST/32 (or nuendo 5.5 OSX for that matter) gives you.

but i must say i have missed that decade. my first mac workstation was a 7300 with 7.5.1 and i was using cubase and protools with it, and never went back to anything ... i went to 8.1 and sonicworx after a year and eagerly waiting for 8.6

[coachla]

I did huge pieces on my Mega 4. Usually 40 tracks. The windows rolled down like maple syrup in a Vermont thaw, but Cubase 2.0 never flinched a bit.. 20 minutes fit on one floppy. I learned to compose on that awesome 8mhz machine. After that I ran a 7100/7.5.6 with Logic 2.0-2.5. It delivered too. Then 8500s and 9500s...You can run 8.6 with a 7.6 Finder or 9.1 with an 8.6 Finder... that snaps things up a bit.

[supernova777]

From the time of the Centris 660av (http://www.everymac.com/systems/apple/mac_centris/specs/mac_centris_660av.html) through to the Power Macintosh 8100/110 (circa 93-94 http://www.everymac.com/systems/apple/powermac/specs/powermac_8100_110.html) the SCC was integrated into an Apple ASIC with a DMA controller supported by a SerialDMA driver. However the first design was flawed and it is essential to ensure that SerialDMA 2 is used. Later Power Macintoshes up to the beige G3s have an improved ASIC (Application Specific Integrated Circuits). For the full story lookup Technote 1018 on Apple's web site. (http://www.fenestrated.net/~macman/mirrors/Apple%20Technotes%20%28As%20of%202002%29/tn/tn1018.html)

i am most likely going to be picking up a complete centris 650 (Feb-Oct 1993) very soon for me to further investigate this articles claims
1993
http://www.everymac.com/systems/apple/mac_centris/specs/mac_centris_650.html

someone is practically giving it who lives closeby to me
8mb ram! lol

best thing about the really vintage macs, no worrying about finding a stupid stealth,gport,g4port,iport,megawolf,keyspan
also this mac features NUBUS SLOTS!!
which would allow me to run a NUBUS powered pro tools system which may be available for an economical price on ebay

http://robbsutton.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/macitosh-centris-650.jpg

heres an ad showing the 660AV centris, and the 840AV quadra, circa january 1994



http://www.kevinomura.com/macs/660av/
heres a shot inside the 660av..... centris 650is bound to be similar
ouch.. cramped.. i hated these types of desktop cases back then
i was actually a pc tech and i remember how frustrating it was to
build systems in these cramped cases u had to follow a specific order
of operations to tear down + rebuild otherwise u would end up
frustrated to all hell:D pretty cramped..
i wonder what other early 1993 systems would be more open + easy to deal with

ok well heres a deal breaker:
the 650 has no geoport!!!!!!!!!
http://www.everymac.com/systems/apple/mac_centris/specs/mac_centris_650.html

so much for that idea 

looks like the centris 660 was the first to introduce geoport serial?
is this true?


this cant be true.. everymac has to be wrong!!!
ok its a false alarm;) it does have serial ports for printer + modem..
duhhhhhh

ok i need a coffee.. im obviously being stupid..

[supernova777]

i wish everymac would sort the old macs by expansion slot interface

nubus vs pci

maybe there is a way to view them this way

WOW! There is!!!!!
http://www.everymac.com/ultimate-mac-sort
hmm but this seems to only index the newer macs
no mention of nubus under expansion slots

[supernova777]

i am most likely going to be picking up a complete centris 650 (Feb-Oct 1993) very soon for me to further investigate this articles claims
1993
http://www.everymac.com/systems/apple/mac_centris/specs/mac_centris_650.html

someone is practically giving it who lives closeby to me
8mb ram! lol

upon further investigation it seems this old mac requires a AAUI to 10baseT adapter to even get it on the network!
so i may not get it at all i dont need to be hunting down any more obscure parts!!!
are these rare? or easy to find?

[Knezzen]

upon further investigation it seems this old mac requires a AAUI to 10baseT adapter to even get it on the network!
so i may not get it at all i dont need to be hunting down any more obscure parts!!!
are these rare? or easy to find?

These are easy to find on ebay
http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_trksid=p2050601.m570.l1313.TR0.TRC0.H0.Xapple+aaui&_nkw=apple+aaui&_sacat=0