CD-Copy 2.0.3e and Macos ROM 10.2.1

[Jakl]

Does anyone still use CD-Copy at all?

I have never recalled this happening before but on my
fw800 MDD which I changed the openfirmware so it booted
os9 - after installing 10.2.1 and all other apps I have found
that CD-copy does not work as it should. Not sure why?
So I took an old ibook G3 with the same ROM from the
MDD general install 10.2.1 and guess what no go again - CD-copy
not working as it should.

Reinstalled a backup of ibook g3 HD with a macos ROM of 9.7.1
and guess what CD-Copy 2.0.3e worked fine again. The ibook
G3 only has a Cd-r in it - by the way.

So some of the older apps do not work well in the newer MDD
macos9 version. There are some strange happenings in the newer
versions versus the older versions. Maybe it was also about the time
when Apple took over Astarte too - the authors of many video-DVD apps etc
and stopped supporting their older apps.

Only needed to use cd-copy for backing up some older scratched akai disks
on macos9.

[supernova777]

i really believe that using this 10.2.1 rom on machines other then mdd is not right.
i have said on other threads how happy i am that my b&W g3 + sawtooth machines
seem to be functioning better now that i have the original installs..
perhaps.. as u have seen here, the real important thing is just the rom,
and that i could have just implanted mac os rom 2.5.1 (on sawtooth) and fixed all my issues
with just that one file..

the rom on my B&W is mac os rom 1.6.

it would be interesting to compaer the file size of the "retail" + "universal" cd installers 'mac os rom'
to see if this rom is like 3-4x the size of any other normal rom, the idea being that it really contains multiple
copies of roms inside... (for different types of machines) or to check if the file size is small, to see if it
has one "universal rom" that was coded this way by apple.

as i posted in another thread already, i was reading that the mac os rom really is a "File within a file"
and that the "mac os rom" file is actually just a script.. but embedded deeper within the file
is the actual rom that would have resided on a microchip on teh motherboard in the "old world rom" macs

[supernova777]

mac os rom 9.7.1

is this not the rom from the "mac os 9.0" retail cd?

[IIO]

Only needed to use cd-copy for backing up some older scratched akai disks
on macos9.

if you really want to use macos9 for that, then use toast. yes i know, it feels different than using a program which can only clone, but it works as well once you know which button to press.

good find about the ROM trouble, however. we really need to learn more about this: why and when it is not possible to use the latest OS9 versus the most possible machine specific.

[supernova777]

the sunrise page mentioned that apple was removing support for g3s when they were developing os 9.2 and higher with support only for the quicksilvers + MDDs truly in mind.........

http://www.sunrisepage.com/computers/macclassic/macos9.htm

from 9.2 time going forward they
were really focused on stability + coexisting of dual boot systems
so they started breaking things by changing them to make them work 'better' with X?
it wouldnt be the first time in software development history that changing something for the better in
one area.. actually breaks + has negative efects on something in another area.. "oops!!!!"

-OR- perhaps these systems actually NEED an mac os x install and there are some shared
files + libraries?? i mean when u do a restore on a qs from 2002. it installs 9.22 + 10.1.3
(a funny looking horrible version of osx! LOL)
maybe deleting the X install somehow can negatively affect the 9.22 install..
they both install TO THE SAME DRIVE
but thats  just a thought -- who knows..

id rather sidestep the issues completely
my decision based on all the information that i've read
as well as my own personal experience....
i will only run os 9.2+ on 2002+ macs http://www.everymac.com/systems/by_year/macs-released-in-2002.html
(arjen + i both agree our qs runs better with 9.0.1 mac os rom, even when i laughed at him the first time he said this! LOL)

for older systems with lower cpu... ill run os 8.6 or 9.0.. or 9.1 at the most..
9.1 because at least with 9.1 u know its 100% osx free,.

think of all the manpower that was devoted to mac os X ..
they were working around teh clock on this thing from what i read
its not a crazy thought to theorize they kind of ignored os9..
i mean.. they knew they were going to kill it off..
it was already decided..
they didnt give anyone a say in the matter..
they had the public funeral planned ..
steve jobs prob had this in mind since the moment he got back in the door
he must have secretly hated the classic mac os enough to murder it

[MacTron]

I have had the same install of Mac Os 9.2.2 and Mac Os ROM 10.2.1 for years in MDD's, Sawtooth (7400 and 7448) and iMacs (G3 and G4) and NEVER EVER have any kind of problem with this.
Nor the "benefits" of a "machine specific version", from Mac Os System 6 era to today, although I have had a huge variety of Macs.

[IIO]

 
the more reports we get the more i believe it is true. but maybe he just forgot to install some extension for this app.
 

[supernova777]

I have had the same install of Mac Os 9.2.2 and Mac Os ROM 10.2.1 for years in MDD's, Sawtooth (7400 and 7448) and iMacs (G3 and G4) and NEVER EVER have any kind of problem with this.
Nor the "benefits" of a "machine specific version", from Mac Os System 6 era to today, although I have had a huge variety of Macs.

havent u said before tho - that u use highly customized mixed systems? and you remove all the extensions + parts u dont use..
perhaps u dont have a problem because you dont try to use things that may have a problem? (such as cd copy)
maybe u are just really lucky;)

[MacTron]

havent u said before tho - that u use highly customized mixed systems? and you remove all the extensions + parts u dont use..

Yes it is.
My installed Mac Os 9, always contains System and Finder 9.2.2 plus Mac Os ROM 10.2.1. The remaining parts of the system files (extensions and control panels) come mostly from MDD CPU 5.9 software but in some cases I had to versions downgrade, up to Mac Os 8.6. That's why my systems are mixed. That's why I always recommend Mac Os 9.2.2 CPU 5.9 (from the MDD) for any G4, even if you don't do the version downgrade.

perhaps u dont have a problem because you dont try to use things that may have a problem? (such as cd copy)
maybe u are just really lucky;)

Yes, I haven't tested all the Mac Os "classic" software...
 ... but almost ... 

[supernova777]

http://macos9lives.com/smforum/index.php?topic=1173.msg4583#msg4583

10.2.1 from Classic installation included in OSX 10.4 Install Disc Set

is this where this 10.2.1 rom is really from?

[Jakl]

The MDD (FW400) has an install DVD called Powermac G4 and comes with
system 10.2.6 and the general install of OS9 (ROM 10.2.1)

The MDD (FW800) has a similar DVD called Powermac G4 and comes with
system 10.2.4 and the classic install of OS9 (ROM 9.7.1) I think. I'll check
- yes it is.

The ibook G3 that I mentioned already had a working OS9 and OSX working
system so I assumed it was installed from proper discs - so don't really know
whether it was the ibook original system or not? All I know is that it has ROM
9.7.1 and it works very well with CD-Copy 2.0.3e, which is all I need at the
moment.

[IIO]

OS9 is "classic", OS7 is "retro".

[Jakl]

I now have tested CD-Copy 2.0.3e on a few machines now;

Originally when using CD-Copy as soon as you start application
it ejects all drives and uses its CD driver. - to ensure disk can be
mounted in the app. window. With MACOS ROM 10.2.1 this doesn't
happen - the disks don't eject for starters and sometimes are not
even read.
With MACOS 9 ROMS such 9.7.1 or 9.6 etc. the disk ejects as normal
and is mounted in the CD-Copy app window.

Quicksilver 933mhz - with 10.2.1 not working as normal
Quicksilver 800mhz - with 10.2.1 not working as normal
Powermac G4 450mhz AGP - with 10.2.1 not working as normal

However with other lower MACOS ROMS they all work with CD-Copy
as normal - ie 9.7.1

So yes version of MACOS ROM 10.2.1 has broken CD-Copy ability
to load and mount in the CD-Copy Application copyrighted CD's.

I think this is very important because "Astarte" maker of Toast and CD-Copy
and the original Software that apple bought off them to make many of their
Final Cut Pro Suite (Astarte Mpeg stuff) etc. had very stable and functional software
- this would suggest that older software written for G4's before the MDD's
may perform better with their own version of the MACOS ROM where some the
software specific subroutines were written for the MACOS9 ROM and not for the
MACOS10.2.1 ROM.

Anyway if anyone has a better understanding feel free to clarify.

[supernova777]

thats just another symptom, dont forget the wierd pauses + delays with finder accessing files..
the simplest conclusion:
mac os rom 10.2.1 was never intended to be used on those machines
and must include code specifically related to the mdd's very different hardware
or perhaps any machine that uses DDR RAM (+ also ATA 100?)

xserve g4s, powerbook g4's, mac mini g4s, emac g4s, imac g4's & ibook g4s
they all use DDR RAM.. do they all use ATA-100 aswell? i think so.

perhaps 10.2.1 mac os rom should only be used on g4 macs from late 2002-2005

i think it must be very much related to the communication to the  ATA-100 disk controller vs ATA-66,ATA-33

it would be interesting to test a Sata CD/DVD drive connected to a sata150 pci card with mac os rom 10.2.1

[Jakl]

Maybe it would be better to find the last version of MACOS9 ROM
to work with CD-Copy on machines before the MDD so that we can
find a good reliable MACOS9 ROM for machines pre-2002 before the MDD
and the like were released.
My bet would be the classic install of the Powermac G4 FW800 MDD
Classic environment(9.7.1). I don't know but I'm sure some of the other experts
here may know better about which ROM would be best.

Maybe we can all give it a go and see if it works with CD-Copy 2.0.3e
on all our machines before the MDD. Or it may even be better to get
a hold of the specific ROMS of all diff machines from B&W G3 to the
Quicksilver themselves.

[supernova777]

hmm,  the final rom thats still appropriate for all SDRAM/ATA-66 powermac g3/g4's

wasnt there a mac os 9.2 retail cd?



it looks like it may be the one from 9.2 (not 9.2.1 or 9.2.2 but simply 9.2)
from june, 2001
according to my timeline post: http://www.oldschooldaw.com/forums/index.php?topic=389.0
the macs that shipped directly after 9.2 was released:
Power Macintosh G4 733 (Quicksilver) 9.2
Power Macintosh G4 867 (Quicksilver) 9.2
Power Macintosh G4 800 DP (Quicksilver) 9.2
not sure which rom versions those guys shipped with..
but the 2002 qs 933 has rom 9.0.1 we know that much..

maybe the restore discs on the macintosh garden for the quicksilver are for the 2001 quicksilvers..
if the 9.7.1 rom came with the fw800 mdd, thats not what u wanna use on a pre-mdd mac
(if this theory is even accurate in the end)

http://macintoshgarden.org/apps/macintosh-system-922-1021-power-macintosh-g4-mirrored-drive-doors-mdd#Universal_Retail_version_and_Updates
this page lists a universal retail version of 9.2.1

if u click the link for the 9.22 update it brings up a media fire page
https://www.mediafire.com/?64da0g3iih922
upon clicking "other languages" it seems this guy has done a great job here!

Brazilian Portuguese, Chinese Simplified, Chinese Traditional, Danish, Finnish, French, German, Intl. English, Italian, Japanese, Korean, Norwegian, Spansih, Swedish

each one contains: 9.1, 9.2.1, 9.2.2 updates i guess to apply to an existing install from the 9.0 retail cd

[supernova777]

heres a screen grab of the directory archive that i had begun to create
keeping track of which rom originated where..



so if its correct, the 9.2.1 retail cd came with 8.4 - or at least thats the version of the rom that it installed
when i used it on whatever specific machine i used it on... perhaps this retail cd implements a different rom
when used on different machines.. its possible?

also, perhaps the rom version would be updated by installing the 9.22 update on the 9.2.1 retail cd
i think whatever it is, it should be somewhat close to the qs 933 9.0.1 rom

the 9.6.1 rom i believe i found by looking at the mdd restore disc from 2002.

the retail cd 9.2.1 appears to have come out just after the release of the qs's from summer 2001..
because they only shipped with 9.2 not 9.21

but i cant seem to find any images of any commercial cd with 9.2.1 on it..
did this cd exist? or was it some hackjob cd that i downloaded made by someone else..
im not sure of this.. Was there ever a 9.2 mac retail disc? i think there might not have been...
then again in my list here i also have 9.1 version listed and again i cant find any image of this cd
on google aswell..

im sure mactron has a similar folder.. maybe he can share his? so we can compare

[Jakl]

Are there any write ups on higher version ROMS like the changes column you have
in the table? eg ROM versions 9.5 - 9.6 - 9.7.1

[supernova777]

Are there any write ups on higher version ROMS like the changes column you have
in the table? eg ROM versions 9.5 - 9.6 - 9.7.1

that is the public document on wikipedia.. its updated by anyone who can add information to the public record.
as for the file tree.. thats just my directory where i have copied a copy of each mac os rom.. to keep track of them.. + try to get an overview on which one is from which source..  i havent got any past the ones listed
9.6.1 is the highest i got, (other than 10.2.1 of course, which i havent added to that collection yet)

[DieHard]

wasnt there a mac os 9.2 retail cd

I have a few 9.2 Factory CDs (One I posted for the last rev of the Powerbook G4 Titanium)...

I have NEVER seen a boxed retail 9.2.2 CD Universal CD and I strongly doubt one exists; please let me know if I am wrong and if anyone has a copy of this unknown CD, we need to post it