PowerBook G3 + OS 9 + HDD partitioning advice

[pacatos]

Greetings to all! Just discovered this site and it's sort of a wish fulfilled.
Please bear with me because I'm quite terrible at forums.

So, I have one PowerBook G3 Wallstreet (the PDQ one) and I'm not sure if my partitioning scheme is working that well. My OS is 9.2.2 and, somewhat unfortnatelly, I could only get a very large HDD model (160 GB). OS 9 shouldn't "recognize" it but I was able to set it up on 2 working partitions: the system is on the first 39 GB partition and the other partition is 78,11 GB. As stated, there are some GBs lost "into the void". I'm OK with that, but I think the drive itself is not behaving well: my downloads are frequently corrupted. I know the problem isn't on the file source, because I usually download the very same file again and it will work as expected. That said, I wonder if the fact that I'm using such a large drive is causing this sort of problems...

Besides that, I'm willing to install Reason 2.5 on this machine. Right now, I currently have the 2.5 Adapted version installed and I'm satisfied with the performance. Do you guys think this machine would cope well with the complete 2.5 version? There's a post from chrisNova stating that for my laptop model, the advisable is to stick with Reason 1.1.
 
BTW, RAM-wise, I think I'm just fine: 512 MB (which I reckon is the maximum allowed).

Thanks!

* sorry for typos and lack of vocabulary skills

[Protools5LEGuy]

Probably onboard IDE or SCSI controller can not handle more than 120 Gb. Intech software breaks this barriers on somes G4s. I have no idea on Wallstreets...
I readed somewhere that OSX partition wants to be the first one on partition map.

I would reformat drive and partition it with OSX adding OS9 drivers, but here people are OS9 lovers so 

On forum are some OS9 only solutions to format disk up to 190 Gb partitions. Wait for others for response.

About reason version, I would try the 1.1 and see if you need 2.5 "only" features.

The endless debate Vx version or Vx+1 ? Vx needs less computer spec than Vx+1. On the other hand Vx+1 has...

I should try every OS8-OS9 version for best performance on your G3

[supernova777]

There's a post from chrisNova stating that for my laptop model, the advisable is to stick with Reason 1.1.
BTW, RAM-wise, I think I'm just fine: 512 MB (which I reckon is the maximum allowed).

hey pacatos.. that was just my own personal thoughts.. u can for sure install version 2.5
its just that i prefer to use v1.1 because for me the lighter the better
it depends on how u intend to use reason..
some people use alot of devices in reason at once
i like to try to record out of it and then turn it off.. and not have things being processed live..
u know. make the bit i want and then export and then save the patch for later and close it and remove it from the reason rack
that is.. if u are using reason with rewire to nuendo or cubase or ableton (imo some of the best rewire clients)
to save the cpu for your mixing + effects in cubase.

but theres definately some great features of 2.5 like the NNXT sampler!
consult this thread: http://macos9lives.com/smforum/index.php?topic=471.msg1129#msg1129

[pacatos]

I would reformat drive and partition it with OSX adding OS9 drivers, but here people are OS9 lovers so 

Yeah, I'm aware I can install OS X here, but I'll stick with OS 9 for this machine. Thanks anyway!
I might make a deal on an iBook G4, though. For this one, I'll surelly keep OS X Tiger. Any tips here will be appreciated, because my experience on Macs are basically within the Intel models (Leopard and forward). Actually, I used to work with System 7 and Mac OS 8 back in the day, but these don't count anymore since it's been AGES that I don't touch those OSes.

i like to try to record out of it and then turn it off.. and not have things being processed live..
u know. make the bit i want and then export and then save the patch for later and close it and remove it from the reason rack.

This is pretty much my intended workflow, chris.
I guess I'll install both versions and share my thoughts... they're both "free", right? :-D
Besides, I've noticed you've shared a lot of "love" for DP here. Are still using this DAW?
For OS 9, I believe DP 3.1 is the way to go.

Thank you guys for the replies. I'm going to bug you more, trust me. 

[supernova777]

digital performer  + ableton live are the only rewire clients that let you easily record multiple tracks at the same time
all other clients make u have to mute each track + export process per track which makes it alot more work + alot more bullshit if u are working with even 2 or 3 tracks it makes it alot more of a pain in the ass to get this stuff into the daw for mixing, but with live + dp its a breeze...

i cant believe cubase programmers never made a way to record from rewire "live" the way u can in the other apps..
unbelievable stupidity on the part of the software programmers.

but they never gave this consideration, the bedroom producer gets no "love"
they want u to spend an extra 900$ in cables + extra interfaces just to do what rewire can do with live + dp in cubase;)

[Protools5LEGuy]

Yeah, I'm aware I can install OS X here, but I'll stick with OS 9 for this machine.

I mean partition with any OSX install disk (only partition it)
On the 2 Partitions I would make 2 OS9 installs. One for 1.1 and the other for 2.5. Benchmark both and delete the slower. Later the deleted partition could be an tiger with ten4fox or a os9 with classilla, just to have the internet partition and the music partition separated for best music partition performance.

If the portable will be your music weapon, just try (If you have time) 8.6, 9.1 and 9.2.2 for the best performance posible.

Visit the post about extensions for daws to reduce the extensions list

[pacatos]

i cant believe cubase programmers never made a way to record from rewire "live" the way u can in the other apps..
unbelievable stupidity on the part of the software programmers.

but they never gave this consideration, the bedroom producer gets no "love"
they want u to spend an extra 900$ in cables + extra interfaces just to do what rewire can do with live + dp in cubase;)

Reproachable behavior, but pretty much de facto business-wise. Steinberg also sells some HW, don't they? That explains.

If I understood it right, their current Cubase version still lack this Rewire function? Wow, that's silly.

[pacatos]

I mean partition with any OSX install disk (only partition it)
On the 2 Partitions I would make 2 OS9 installs. One for 1.1 and the other for 2.5. Benchmark both and delete the slower. Later the deleted partition could be an tiger with ten4fox or a os9 with classilla, just to have the internet partition and the music partition separated for best music partition performance.

If the portable will be your music weapon, just try (If you have time) 8.6, 9.1 and 9.2.2 for the best performance posible.

Visit the post about extensions for daws to reduce the extensions list

Interesting... Never occurred to me to use OS X's Disk Utility to manage OS 9 (or earlier) partitions. I feel dumb. 
Thanks for the tip. I will try it when I feel brave enough.

[pacatos]

OK, guys, just an update on my personal journey:

I reformatted my hard disk drive into 3 partitions, one for OS 9.2.2, other for OS 9.1 and the last one for OS 8.6.
So far, I've installed the OS 9.2.2 and OS 8.6 partitions and will leave OS 9.1 for a later time.
Installation of both OSes went really smooth... No hang-ups, no corrupted downloads, big win for me.
Now comes the tricky part: can I install one program on OS 8.6 and then access it directly on OS 9.2 afterwards? Or should I install it once more at the other OS? I've done this for Reason 1.0 and it's working just fine on both OSes.

Still, I've ran into some trouble after I've updated the Reason Engine and Rewire extensions... I'll explain it on another post at the Reason board, ok?

Huge thanks to both of you guys!

[supernova777]

Interesting... Never occurred to me to use OS X's Disk Utility to manage OS 9 (or earlier) partitions. I feel dumb. 
Thanks for the tip. I will try it when I feel brave enough.

well die hard the site owner would not approve thats for sure.. but ive had no problems doing this..
but not to "manage" only to initially set up the raw partition map + partitions + format..
after which i keep osx on an osx partition and os9 on an os9  partition and i dont even copy files back and forth between the two
without using another drive to copy to first + reboot + copy them back..
people have run into problems in the past im told the theory is something eventually screws up when copying files between x + 9
but i really believe this is due to people who neglected to selet "osx extended without journalling" as this journalling different in filesystem
is the only thing that could logically really cause problems.. if u install osx without journalling u should be safe in my opinion
and dont use os9 disk defragmenting apps etc

[supernova777]

OK, guys, just an update on my personal journey:

I reformatted my hard disk drive into 3 partitions, one for OS 9.2.2, other for OS 9.1 and the last one for OS 8.6.

i dont understand why u would need to do this as i cant think of a scenario where something would work in 8.6 and not in 9.2?
can u let us know what exactly inspired u  to seek this setup?

[pacatos]

people have run into problems in the past im told the theory is something eventually screws up when copying files between x + 9
but i really believe this is due to people who neglected to selet "osx extended without journalling" as this journalling different in filesystem
is the only thing that could logically really cause problems.. if u install osx without journalling u should be safe in my opinion
and dont use os9 disk defragmenting apps etc

Hi, chris! Which OS X are you referring to? My copy of Jaguar doesn't even have the journaling option. It's just "extended" if I recall it right.

Either way, I couldn't set up OS X at this machine. Seems my Jaguar "copy" from Pirate Bay is quite faulty. By the way, my PRAM battery is dead, can it cause any problems? Sorry for my noobness.

Regarding defragmenting apps...  I'm confused, do you mean not defragmenting at all?

[pacatos]

OK, guys, just an update on my personal journey:

I reformatted my hard disk drive into 3 partitions, one for OS 9.2.2, other for OS 9.1 and the last one for OS 8.6.

i dont understand why u would need to do this as i cant think of a scenario where something would work in 8.6 and not in 9.2?
can u let us know what exactly inspired u  to seek this setup?

just some benchmarking... 

[DieHard]

Now comes the tricky part: can I install one program on OS 8.6 and then access it directly on OS 9.2 afterwards? Or should I install it once more at the other OS? I've done this for Reason 1.0 and it's working just fine on both OSes.

OK Couple of Quick Tidbits...

I Setup a few Early G4s and G3s just as you did with different versions of OS 8 and OS 9 for bench testing and comparing different setups with the same applications.... it is always a good idea to actually boot to the partition you will be installing the app into and also rebooting and re-installing it again for each partition... this will ensure any preferences/extensions (go in the right system folder)  and hidden files are written to the correct partition... simply launching it from a different partition is not a very good idea in general since it may spoil your ability to compare apples with apples and weird errors may crop up.

Also... you don't have to believe me... you can google the famous Invalid BTree Header , 0, 0... this error can occur after OS X simply mounts and OS 9 Volume... OS X can write data to OS 9 volumes that OS 9 cannot understand and this will lead to Mac OS 9 file system issues later (hence my paranoia about having X on an OS 9 machine, Chris will never understand until he has to juggle around gigabytes of stuff and re-initialize OS 9 volumes); i personally advise having an OS X G4 and an OS 9 G4 and transferring files via gigabit Ethernet.  I have different Firewire drives I use for X and a few I use for 9...  After setting up more that a few macs in my day with every possible configuration.... dual boot on single volumes... dual boot on different drives... dual boot on separate volumes... I now, in my more conservative years, never let OS X and OS 9 play together on the same unit...  however, you can obviously do whatever config. you want... these may merely be the crazed rantings of an old man.

If you are bold (and don't care much about you OS 9 data) then mix it up and remember the following about file name lengths...
Restricting Length of Filenames...
Although current file systems such as HFS+ (used by Mac OS X) allow you to create filenames with a 255-character limit, you may want to limit your filename length if you intend to transfer your files to other operating systems. Earlier versions of the Mac OS allow only 31-character filenames, and if you want to include a file extension (such as .fcp, .mov, or .aif), you need to shorten your Mac OS 9-compatible filenames to 27 characters.

[pacatos]

Hello DieHard and thanks for taking you time here.
As you might be aware, this PowerBook doesn't have an USB port, which means file transfer is pretty cumbersome.
Basing on what you're saying, are you also against the idea of directly connecting (for instance) a MacBook on OSX and this PowerBook via ethernet cable for transferring large files?

[supernova777]

Also... you don't have to believe me... you can google the famous Invalid BTree Header , 0, 0... this error can occur after OS X simply mounts and OS 9 Volume... OS X can write data to OS 9 volumes that OS 9 cannot understand and this will lead to Mac OS 9 file system issues later (hence my paranoia about having X on an OS 9 machine, Chris will never understand until he has to juggle around gigabytes of stuff and re-initialize OS 9 volumes); i personally advise having an OS X G4 and an OS 9 G4 and transferring files via gigabit Ethernet.  I have different Firewire drives I use for X and a few I use for 9...  After setting up more that a few macs in my day with every possible configuration.... dual boot on single volumes... dual boot on different drives... dual boot on separate volumes... I now, in my more conservative years, never let OS X and OS 9 play together on the same unit...  however, you can obviously do whatever config. you want... these may merely be the crazed rantings of an old man.

lol
i dont copy files between drives, ever.. and not all of us have the luxury of having enough hard drives or macs.. sometimes its got to be done to have both x + 9 on the same mac... for whatever the reason.. like i said in my post tho, i dont copy from 9 partition to X partition, or vice versa.. instead i transfer to another location eitehr by usb or ethernet or firewire etc and reboot and copy the file back.. and i have never encountered this btree error

my research on the matter leads back to the problem really being norton defragment.. and if u dont ever run norton defrag u never have the problem (which may be the reason why i have never had this problem.. because ive never used norton defrag ever or any other defrag i end up moving my data to another computer + id sooner wipe my drive + reinstall then worry about defragging in my experience its quicker + Easier to wipe a drive + start over .. would be even quicker to restore from a disk image backup (.dmg in osx disk utility) disk utility is capable of installing os9 drivers for this purpose.. are u sure your btree error isnt a result of journalling vs non journalling collision combined with norton defrag?

have u ever tried to make it happen on purpose?
i would love to know the steps to recreate this error because ive never seen it

again, i have to reiterate.. I NEVER COPY DATA BETWEEN X + 9 PARTITION ON THE SAME DRIVE.. when booted into 9 i pretend the other X partition does not exist and vice versa.. i dont access x from 9 or 9 from x.. ever... i simply switch between them.. neither to i share any other secondary drives or partitions, and ive never had this btree problem ever, if i did want to transfer files such as an ableton live or cubase project files etc i would first ftp them to another computer and then reboot into the other os and then ftp them back.

[DieHard]

Are you referring to the know issues with Norton Disk Doctor ?... It has been known to corrupt 9.2.2 volumes and that is why I removed it from the Norton Utilities that is uploaded... never any issues with defrag... anyway...

I won't beat this into the ground... The error I am referring to has happened on various music studio client's G4 also (not just mine) and they did not have Norton defrag loaded.  I have seen it happen on a test bed Quicksilver from 10.4 just mounting the drive 1 time.  If it never happens to you then that is awesome... I am just reporting what I have seen.  I cannot duplicate the step.  The data was still accessible, but my client had to bounce 70GB of Nuendo projects... I definitely did not ask him if we could try it a second time (after we got everything up and running)  to see if we could "reproduce the error".... nor have I found a pattern... Some of my personal G4s... MDD, QS, TI and Cubes ran for months with no issues whatsoever... and randomly.... BAM.... same Btree error when running disk First Aid under 9.

I did note that the error has only occurred on volumes that were over 50% full... don't know if it is the number of files, custom icon, file name... I honestly do not know what triggers it.

As far as transferring large files & projects from OS 9 and OS X, I don't use Ethernet... I lied, I use a dedicated Lacie FW enclosure that I only use just for transfers... set it up it in 2009 and it has not suffered any ill effects... it never goes above 20% full (again don't know if that matters);  at any rate, I never store anything I need on that drive so I am willing to re-initialize as needed.  As far as my other macs... i am not looking forward to having to move Sample libraries and archived projects around if the error randomly crops up.

Just to clarify, I have NEVER lost any data, the btree error still leaves the volume assessable and the data can be copied elsewhere... I just gave up a long time ago mixing X since I was dealing with btree errors, custom icon issues, long files names (that now looked like gibberish in OS 9).  Back in the day, this was just a personal decision.... I am NOT X-phobic... I use SL and ML on my newer macs, I just avoid mixing X and 9 whenever possible.  Over the last 8 years My OS 9 units have never even had the smallest of issues (file system wise) since I used this approach, so I am sticking with it; my days of trying to track down what causes these issues, or reproducing them, are over.... I leave that to the young guys.

Just FYI, this EXACT ERROR has hit the apple forums over the years... check out these posts... hmmm, maybe I'm sane after all

https://discussions.apple.com/thread/118748?tstart=0

https://discussions.apple.com/message/2667224#2667224

[supernova777]

I am NOT X-phobic

lol:)
sure sure;)

are we talking about the same thing here tho? i really doubt we are
like i said, when i do this i keep X  on its own partition
and 9 on its own partition
i dont have x + 9 on the same partition and booting between the two os..
same disk yes.. same partition no.
im pretty sure the scenarios u are talking about involved people who ran osx on the same partition as 9
theres alot of differences in scenarios that can be graphed + plotted + tracked here and it gets complicated fast
im not insinuating that u are insane;) im just of the belief that things dont happen randomly for no reason and in my experience things that were magic + random after some carefull insight + attention seem to be able to be sourced to a specific reason of cause + effect.. in a specific configuration scenario! and i understand that by not mixing the two os completely you have found your surefire way of avoiding any complications. most logical indeed but perhaps there is another way to avoid the same problem.. ? like not mixing partitions + not mixing files between those partitions..