Mac OS 9 Lives! (Classic Mac OS Forum)

Classic Mac OS Software (Discussions on Applications) => Hacking the System, Mac OS 9.3, and Beyond ! => Topic started by: nanopico on September 01, 2015, 08:40:04 AM

Title: Any one want to help build a community made OS 9.3?
Post by: nanopico on September 01, 2015, 08:40:04 AM
So here's my idea.
We as a community create the necessary bits and pieces to get OS 9 running on all G3/G4 machines and possibly on G5 machines.
We would do this by basing it off the latest rom, extensions and drivers that already exist.
The internet archive has a 4 GB tar file of developer.apple.com that contains a lot of developer information and hardware specs.  Between that and linux source code for these machines it's not unreasonable to be able create the right extensions, control panels and enablers to get the OS running on unsupported hardware.
I for one am going to attempt this and I'm curious if any one else want's to join in?
yes I am aware that this is a rather large undertaking with a lot of missing documentation, but I do strongly believe everything needed to do this is available, just not in one convenient location.
Title: Re: Any one want to help build a community made OS 9.3?
Post by: Graveyard on September 01, 2015, 09:01:53 AM
I am willing to use all my ppc machines to test it, if anyone is willing to initiate such a project. If there's anything in my archive i can contribute with, i'm more than willing to do so.
Title: Re: Any one want to help build a community made OS 9.3?
Post by: devils_advisor on September 01, 2015, 09:11:29 AM
just one problem right away. how do you make sure it is compatible backward ? it is rather complicated to play with the filesystem. can you layout in detail what the idea is or do you plan something like rosetta ?
Title: Re: Any one want to help build a community made OS 9.3?
Post by: nanopico on September 01, 2015, 11:17:26 AM
It wouldn't be like Rosetta as that was technically an emulator/runtime that did instruction translation between the PPC instruction set and the X86 instruction set.
The biggest issue is that of the hardware. 
Graphics card and bus architecture issues can be worked out through extensions. Basically you can look through the various open source graphics drivers for the various *nix's to figure out how the hardware is addressed and works.  From there you can take that knowledge and create extensions/drivers for OS 9.  Same thing for USB2, FW800, PCI-E, though because those are buses, a lot of additional hardware will not work there would be no drivers for those devices in OS 9, though if we get that far it would not be beyond the realm of reality to write drivers for some of those devices.
The other side of it is the ROM, which is what I believe is where you would have concerns with backwards compatibility.  There has been some great work done here already to get some machines to run existing ROM's by basically tricking the systems into a sort of backwards compatibility mode.  What I would suggest is rolling back to the latest official Apple released ROM.  Starting there we get compatibility with everything officially supported by Apple.
From there you start writing enablers for the various unsupported machines.  This is functionality was introduced with system 7 so and is still supported on the new world ROM's.  And actually the switching to the new world ROM probably makes this a bit easier as there are actually two ROM's.  One is the firmware ROM that would be within open frimware.  This is used to basically initialize all the hardware.  The second ROM is the toolbox ROM and this is what has been modified so far to get some unsupported machines running.  This rom is loaded via a CHRP script which i believe iMic, DieHard and some others (sorry if I left anyone's name off there that helped with that) have modified/worked with to get the machines running.  The CHRP script would need to be modified to load the toolbox, detect unsupported CPU's and load the enabler for them, then load the toolbox ROM, transfer control to that and allow it to continue booting.

Additionally there may need to be extensions written that detect the various motherboard ASIC's and provide patches to the toolbox rom to make them work so that the machine can be fully supported.

This is by no means a trivial task, and may end up going no-where, but it's something I for one am going to try to make happen.

I suspect there will be a lot of this may end up being written in assembly with a heft amount of C as well.

So in a nutshell that's my plan.

At the very minimum, I hope to at least create some graphics card drivers out of this so that we can at least add a few newer cards to the list available in OS 9 and possibly even a few other drivers such as class complaint drivers for USB Audio.
Title: Re: Any one want to help build a community made OS 9.3?
Post by: devils_advisor on September 01, 2015, 11:44:05 AM
sounds like you need to plan that thing out very well. by the way you cant rely on nix code and would have to reverse a lot of the code. remember os9 has still a lot of pascal in it.
Title: Re: Any one want to help build a community made OS 9.3?
Post by: nanopico on September 01, 2015, 11:51:22 AM
*nix code would not be used, but referenced for communication specification and register information of various cards.
Pascal was used up to System 6.  7 started a migration to C.
Most of 8 and 9 where C.  There may be pascal, but in the end it's all binary machine instructions.
Title: Re: Any one want to help build a community made OS 9.3?
Post by: devils_advisor on September 01, 2015, 12:09:03 PM
i think you are wrong about that. the pascal heritage is a big part of it because they reused to much of the old code instead of rewriting it.
Title: Re: Any one want to help build a community made OS 9.3?
Post by: nanopico on September 01, 2015, 12:24:04 PM
Possible, but really the language they used is fairly irrelevant honestly as the approach I am looking at is through extensions, enablers and control panels and those can be written in c, assembly, pascal, whatever...
Title: Re: Any one want to help build a community made OS 9.3?
Post by: devils_advisor on September 01, 2015, 12:37:31 PM
so what software is used to work on it? have you looked at the transition between 9 and x ? i think that was copeland or something like that it looked like 9 but had already a lite taste of x. maybe that should be analyzed. i would like to have a real multitasking and a way to free the memory when you close the app.
Title: Re: Any one want to help build a community made OS 9.3?
Post by: nanopico on September 01, 2015, 12:43:38 PM
Right now I'm still researching all the piece and bits, and this is more a call out to anyone who has any low level knowledge they want to contribute.  There was rhapsody which might be what you are thinking of. It looked like 9, but it was the core of the first version of x and I believe it went on to be released as os x server 1.0 which ran on PPC and Intel oddly enough.
Yes multitasking would be awesome and could definitely be added to the wish list of features along with freeing memory. though keep in mind I'm not completely sure all this can happen.
The memory one might be easier to implement though as memory managers are slightly easier to implement then task schedulers when dealing with OS level items.
Title: Re: Any one want to help build a community made OS 9.3?
Post by: devils_advisor on September 01, 2015, 12:46:24 PM
may not be able to do all of that since you need to keep a level of compatibilitie. most old apps on os9 dont expect such a drastic change and may crash.
Title: Re: Any one want to help build a community made OS 9.3?
Post by: nanopico on September 01, 2015, 12:48:33 PM
Agreed completely there.
Title: Re: Any one want to help build a community made OS 9.3?
Post by: Protools5LEGuy on September 01, 2015, 01:42:21 PM

We as a community create the necessary bits and pieces to get OS 9 running on all G3/G4 machines and possibly on G5 machines.


At the very minimum, I hope to at least create some graphics card drivers out of this so that we can at least add a few newer cards to the list available in OS 9 and possibly even a few other drivers such as class complaint drivers for USB Audio.

There is only a few machines left out: All iBooks G4 and all Alu Powerbooks that don´t play OS9. All PM G4 now run native OS9. The lack of OS9 drivers in those machines is the trouble where iMic left his work. The search should start on those graphics cards and also the G4 AGP cards "OSX" compatible. ATI's 9200 and up and Gforce 5200 and up. I would love ATI 9650 and 9800 working in OS9... In fact, any  CoreImage card going OS9 with 2D and 3D accel would be a gift.

I think ALL USB 1.1  class complaint work with Ploytec drivers...

Good luck with that. I have already posted most of the info from Apple developer in the age of MacOS8.5 and 9 via wayback machine on other post. I will put them back here on this later.
Title: Re: Any one want to help build a community made OS 9.3?
Post by: nanopico on September 01, 2015, 01:48:57 PM
I saw your post on the driver dev stuff on the other thread.  I think there were a few pdf's missing on the way back machine.
I did find them last night in some of my own archives as well.  I will share them here as soon as I get a chance.
Graphic drivers are where I do plan on starting as it did look like that is the biggest hangup on most machines remaining that need support.
Title: Re: Any one want to help build a community made OS 9.3?
Post by: Philgood on September 01, 2015, 02:53:25 PM
Would love to be able to boot OS 9 with my alu PowerBook.
I think having a graphic card driver for these machines is all what's needed beside of the work already done on hacking unsupported machines?
Title: Re: Any one want to help build a community made OS 9.3?
Post by: MacTron on September 03, 2015, 09:11:09 AM
Trying to recompile Linux drivers to make it work in Mac Os 9 is a real hard an very complex task.
- Most of linux drivers are in the kernel, and there, the source code is an actual nightmare, (unless we found one of the Intel programmers that work on it...)
- Most of the Linux hardware work with "generic drivers" that aren't enough reliable.
- Some of the Linux drivers lack of source code, only binaries are provided (nVidia drivers)
I have place Here a early PowerMac G5 block diagram as an example of how many alien devices Mac Os 9 can find if trying to boot on such computers:

(http://www001.upp.so-net.ne.jp/medicalmac/im2/pmg50504.gif)
Title: Re: Any one want to help build a community made OS 9.3?
Post by: nanopico on September 04, 2015, 08:52:29 AM
Yes I am aware of the issues you outlined with linux/unix drivers and porting.
I do have a bit of experience in this area which is why I'm even willing to attempt this.
Those block diagrams are helpful as well.  I have a many of them also.
Yes the binary only nature of many drivers does make such things very difficult.
But even if we get some generic drivers for this hardware to work and get the systems booting and running (even sub optimally) that would still be an interesting feat.
Title: Re: Any one want to help build a community made OS 9.3?
Post by: MacTron on September 04, 2015, 09:01:56 AM
Yes I am aware of the issues you outlined with linux/unix drivers and porting.
I do have a bit of experience in this area which is why I'm even willing to attempt this.
Those block diagrams are helpful as well.  I have a many of them also.
Yes the binary only nature of many drivers does make such things very difficult.
But even if we get some generic drivers for this hardware to work and get the systems booting and running (even sub optimally) that would still be an interesting feat.

In my opinion, porting a U3 driver from Debian PPC to Mac Os 9, to try to boot a G5 with Mac Os 9, will be a good starting point.
Just a suggestion :)
Title: Re: Any one want to help build a community made OS 9.3?
Post by: nanopico on September 04, 2015, 11:14:55 AM
I will definitely take that suggestion and any others for sure.
Title: Re: Any one want to help build a community made OS 9.3?
Post by: IIO on September 04, 2015, 12:28:30 PM
In fact, any  CoreImage card going OS9 with 2D and 3D accel would be a gift.

you wont even get those to run under OSX, because all of them are aready x8. i think it is possible to use the PCI version of the geforce 5 in a G4, but it would run slower than a geforce 3 in a x4 slot and it would probably not support any kind of acceleration under OS9. you could as well use no graphics card at all.
Title: Re: Any one want to help build a community made OS 9.3?
Post by: nanopico on September 08, 2015, 07:31:56 AM
While researching/working on this I found some sort of interesting (although not surprising) bits.
So I've been digging through the open source ati drivers and the linux kernel generic video drivers and I got this idea.
Why start there when you can start right at the source, that being Apple.   The core of OS X is open source so I figured I'd look at darwin (well actually the xnu kernel source).  Yes I realize that OS X is not 9, but both are from Apple, so it's pretty safe to assume the driver code in xnu would be a good base. 
So here comes the interesting part. The power management drivers for the version of the xnu kernel that corresponds to OS X 10.3.9 have comments that the code is copied directly from OS 9.
So I am now digging through the xnu code for details of the hardware and drivers that need to be created.
Title: Re: Any one want to help build a community made OS 9.3?
Post by: mrhappy on September 08, 2015, 07:41:21 AM

So here comes the interesting part. The power management drivers for the version of the xnu kernel that corresponds to OS X 10.3.9 have comments that the code is copied directly from OS 9.


You guys are WAY over my head but this DOES seem interesting!!
Title: Re: Any one want to help build a community made OS 9.3?
Post by: IIO on September 11, 2015, 01:54:50 AM
The core of OS X is open source so I figured I'd look at darwin (well actually the xnu kernel source).  Yes I realize that OS X is not 9, but both are from Apple, so it's pretty safe to assume the driver code in xnu would be a good base.

"both are from apple" seems to be quite unintersting, given that we are talking about completly different hardware components and a completly different OS.

can you explain why you would not just write OS9 drivers today the same way they were written 15 years ago?
Title: Re: Any one want to help build a community made OS 9.3?
Post by: nanopico on September 11, 2015, 06:22:22 AM
I will write them the same way the did back in the day, but back in the day the apple engineers likely had full documentation on the chips as to what registers, instructions and memory locations they had.  I do not have access to this documentation so going to xnu as a source means that you can pull the registers, instructions and memory locations from that code to sort of rebuild that documentation to write the driver off of. 

Title: Re: Any one want to help build a community made OS 9.3?
Post by: IIO on September 11, 2015, 04:03:04 PM
i see. well if that is easier than finding the old documentations, then go on. :)
Title: Re: Any one want to help build a community made OS 9.3?
Post by: nanopico on September 11, 2015, 06:13:16 PM
If you know a good source for the documentation of the various devices then I'm all ears.
Title: Re: Any one want to help build a community made OS 9.3?
Post by: IIO on September 12, 2015, 05:13:22 AM
i am more the guy for commercial software. :)

today it is already hard to impossible to find the old SDKs for controlpanels, quicktime, java or perl. not to mention stuff which requires info about 15 years old hardware.

Title: Re: Any one want to help build a community made OS 9.3?
Post by: Front 424 on November 11, 2015, 05:00:49 AM
I'm very intrigued by this talk!  ;)
I wish I had some programming skills, but alas, none to be had.  I dabbled in the past but lost interest.  But if I did i would readily lend a hand in this endeavor!

This is my first post here months after joining, and glad to see a community keeping OS 9 alive.  Even better that at least one person is hoping to improve OS 9.

I figured I would bump this post for encouragement.  Any updates would be appreciated.
Title: Re: Any one want to help build a community made OS 9.3?
Post by: nanopico on November 11, 2015, 08:29:06 AM
I haven't really given an update as I don't have any thing to show at this point.  I don't expect this to be quick and easy by any means.
But I can give you an update on what I have found and know.

I have found through exhaustive searching old documentations on various parts of the mac internals (well as much as apple documented for developer use).

I found several references that stated that the Classic Support extension used for Classic mode in os x does some interesting things such as completely replace all memory management routines to map them to the memory manager of OS X.  This is probably the main reason why you can not access hardware directly from with in classic mode.

The earliest part of the boot process that open firmware hands off to is an elf executable.  OS 9 uses PEF executable format, but Open Firmware knows about ELF formats.  The elf file is actually responsible for loading, decompressing/decoding either an LZSS file embedded in the ROM (used on versions lower than 9.0) or parcels embedded in the rom file.  These parts are in the data fork of Mac OS ROM.
The ELF file is a valid ELF file but most decompilers/disassemblers do not recognize it as they expect a record size for sections.  The standard states that if no sections are defined then the record size can be zero.  This is the case in this ELF file so the decompilers out there think it's an invalid file.  The second problem with the disassemblers that are available is that they only speak the simplified PPC instruction set.  After extracing the program headers from the elf file and running it through several disassemblers as raw code I figured this out as the output had a lot of long jumps which are not part of the PPS ISA.
So I set forth and wrote a small utility program that loads the ROM into ram in a known place.  The reason for this is that after everything is loaded and booted, parts are moved around and removed from memory so you can't view the data in the ram locations these parts are where loaded in.  Once I loaded the ROM into ram the program analizes all the parts to find the entry point that open firmware essentially jumps to.  So once I have that address for my loaded ROM, I dropped into macsbug and used that disassembler and told it to start dissasembling from the entry address.  This produced much different output than other disassemblers and I was able to figure out that the PPC processor apple uses (at least starting with the g3's and forward) are using the ISA For PowerPC Book E  (Which is an enhanced instruction set).  The other thing that indicates that the ISA for the g3 and newer is Book E is that the instructoins 2-4 from the entry point are all Book E instructions.  If a cpu doesn't support Book E the unsupported instructions can be emulated in code, but you need to load a trap/interrupt, a function to handle it and then a look up table to decide what actual procedure to run.  These things would not be loaded with in the first 4 instructions.

The other thing I've figured out is the PVR (cpu_version) is checked early on in the elf file to even determine if it should move forward.
On New World machines the elf file is loaded and one of the first things it does is pull some data out of the device tree then issues the DO-QUIESCES which basicly suspends open firmware.

I haven't fully decifered everything in that elf boot loader code, but my suspicions at the moment lead me to believe that it does the following. 

Checks the CPU Version to ensure it is a version supported (updating this will get OS 9 booting on the G4's that require the cpu-version property  change in the open firmware device tree with out having to do the update)

Decodes the toolbox rom from either the LZSS file or the Parcels

Jumps to the kernel to finish booting.

It's at the point once the nano-kernel is started that you will see the Happy Mac.

I haven't figured out if the nano-kernel is part of the elf file or int the LZSS or Parcels.

And some very early notes on the possibility of booting on the G5.
The 64 Bit version of the Book E ISA is backwards compatible with the 32 bit version.  This is actually why all the OS X versions suppored on the G5 where 32 bit.  They could write it in 32 bit and it would run on the G4, G3 and G5 with no real issue.
So the cpu will not be a limiting factor on the G5.
The error seen booting on the G5
MacOS: cascade interrupt, but no cascading bridge
Is an issue early on with in the ELF file mentioned.  In both the G4 and G5's the cascading bridge is implemented in the north bridge.
The north bridge is completely different (as noted elsewhere in this thread) on these two systems. The drivers for the Uni North are in a resource in the Mac OS ROM file.  I haven't figured out though if there is some basic initialization code that runs prior to that driver (to enable full functionality) in the boot loader because I haven't figured out if it has access to the items in the resource fork by that time in the boot process.  I think it might so if a U3 driver can be written and dropped in that resource that would solve that problem. Of course this would still not allow the G5 to fully boot OS 9.  Other things that would have to be added to get the G5 working is support for AGP 8x and pci-e.  These are implemented also in the U3 controller.  The AGP 8x ports on the G5 are not backwards compatible at all according to Apple documentation.
I have not given up hope of booting on the G5, it will just take a lot more time than getting full support on unsupported G4's and doing a couple more memory enhancements as well.

On the subject of memory here's an interesting tidbit.
The Toolbox kernel and system resources (including the finder) are loaded into the lowest part of memory.
Applications are loaded into the top part of memory.
So when you have 2 GB of ram in OS9 and the finder takes 512 MB.  This is the first 512 MB (well starting from the kernel, toolbox)
This means that applications can run when their memory addresses are up in the top 2GB of ram.
So I am fairly confident that the memory management routines can be updated to get access to that part the finder is taking up.

That's it for my rambles.  Again nothing to show other than some understanding about early boot process.
Title: Re: Any one want to help build a community made OS 9.3?
Post by: mrhappy on November 11, 2015, 09:04:26 AM
Great detective work nanopico!! Some very interesting stuff there.

Don't know anything about the ELF file but I've seen the ELF movie numerous times!! ;D ;D ;D

Title: Re: Any one want to help build a community made OS 9.3?
Post by: nanopico on November 11, 2015, 09:09:47 AM
Yes that is a great movie.
Elf is the default executable format for Linux, which is why I was fairly surprised to find that in the ROM file.
Title: Re: Any one want to help build a community made OS 9.3?
Post by: mrhappy on November 11, 2015, 09:30:51 AM
of coarse!!! ;D
Title: Re: Any one want to help build a community made OS 9.3?
Post by: nanopico on November 11, 2015, 10:13:26 AM
I forgot to mention I did create some templates for ResEdit that would allow a few resources types to be updated much more easily (such as the gtbl).  I can post them here if any one is interested.
Title: Re: Any one want to help build a community made OS 9.3?
Post by: devils_advisor on November 11, 2015, 10:20:42 AM
Might need a one on one when it comes to programming.
Title: Re: Any one want to help build a community made OS 9.3?
Post by: MacTron on November 11, 2015, 11:54:08 AM
I found several references that stated that the Classic Support extension used for Classic mode in os x does some interesting things such as completely replace all memory management routines to map them to the memory manager of OS X.  This is probably the main reason why you can not access hardware directly from with in classic mode.

In Classic mode we can't access to hardware because there is no hardware to access.  ;D it's a virtual mac.

Quote
The other thing I've figured out is the PVR (cpu_version) is checked early on in the elf file to even determine if it should move forward.
On New World machines the elf file is loaded and one of the first things it does is pull some data out of the device tree then issues the DO-QUIESCES which basicly suspends open firmware.

I haven't fully decifered everything in that elf boot loader code, but my suspicions at the moment lead me to believe that it does the following. 

Checks the CPU Version to ensure it is a version supported (updating this will get OS 9 booting on the G4's that require the cpu-version property  change in the open firmware device tree with out having to do the update)

Decodes the toolbox rom from either the LZSS file or the Parcels

Jumps to the kernel to finish booting.

That's one of the main task of the Sonnet/Newertech OF scripts that enable Mac Os 9 to boot with a 7447 and a 7448 installed.

Quote
It's at the point once the nano-kernel is started that you will see the Happy Mac.

I haven't figured out if the nano-kernel is part of the elf file or int the LZSS or Parcels.

And some very early notes on the possibility of booting on the G5.
The 64 Bit version of the Book E ISA is backwards compatible with the 32 bit version.  This is actually why all the OS X versions suppored on the G5 where 32 bit.  They could write it in 32 bit and it would run on the G4, G3 and G5 with no real issue.
So the cpu will not be a limiting factor on the G5.
The error seen booting on the G5
MacOS: cascade interrupt, but no cascading bridge
Is an issue early on with in the ELF file mentioned.  In both the G4 and G5's the cascading bridge is implemented in the north bridge.
The north bridge is completely different (as noted elsewhere in this thread) on these two systems. The drivers for the Uni North are in a resource in the Mac OS ROM file.  I haven't figured out though if there is some basic initialization code that runs prior to that driver (to enable full functionality) in the boot loader because I haven't figured out if it has access to the items in the resource fork by that time in the boot process.  I think it might so if a U3 driver can be written and dropped in that resource that would solve that problem. Of course this would still not allow the G5 to fully boot OS 9.  Other things that would have to be added to get the G5 working is support for AGP 8x and pci-e.  These are implemented also in the U3 controller.  The AGP 8x ports on the G5 are not backwards compatible at all according to Apple documentation.
I have not given up hope of booting on the G5, it will just take a lot more time than getting full support on unsupported G4's and doing a couple more memory enhancements as well.

I have pointed out many times that lack of drivers for the U3 will be the first obstacle to boot a G5 with Mac Os 9.

Quote
On the subject of memory here's an interesting tidbit.
The Toolbox kernel and system resources (including the finder) are loaded into the lowest part of memory.
Applications are loaded into the top part of memory.
So when you have 2 GB of ram in OS9 and the finder takes 512 MB.  This is the first 512 MB (well starting from the kernel, toolbox)
This means that applications can run when their memory addresses are up in the top 2GB of ram.
So I am fairly confident that the memory management routines can be updated to get access to that part the finder is taking up.

That's it for my rambles.  Again nothing to show other than some understanding about early boot process.

Wow! this is really interesting. I have thought about this in several occasions but I never have found a so good idea !
The problem may be that this extra memory address may be used already (by ROM by example).
Another possibility is to use this memory as a RAM disk. This was already done with some old macs.


Title: Re: Any one want to help build a community made OS 9.3?
Post by: nanopico on November 11, 2015, 02:35:06 PM
Yes the Sonnet/Neweretech OF scripts over ride the cpu-version to boot the 7447 and 7448/  I'm hopping to update the code that checks that actually in the rom so that those scripts don't need to be run.

I'm not entirely sure what is using the lower 512 MB address space.  I can't really imagine it being ROM or Toolbox. It's entirely possible though.

Yes the lack of U3 drivers is the first obstacle for G5, and I'm 100% sure it's not the only one.  The key largo 2 will also be an issue.
the cascading interrupt bridge error is proof that that is the first issue to overcome.
Title: Re: Any one want to help build a community made OS 9.3?
Post by: DieHard on November 11, 2015, 07:56:26 PM
Quote
On the subject of memory here's an interesting tidbit.
The Toolbox kernel and system resources (including the finder) are loaded into the lowest part of memory.
Applications are loaded into the top part of memory.
So when you have 2 GB of ram in OS9 and the finder takes 512 MB.  This is the first 512 MB (well starting from the kernel, toolbox)
This means that applications can run when their memory addresses are up in the top 2GB of ram.
So I am fairly confident that the memory management routines can be updated to get access to that part the finder is taking up.

As Mactron mentioned, and I alluded to here:
http://macos9lives.com/smforum/index.php?topic=2101.msg10763#msg10763

There would be a tremendous advantage to utilize the first 512MB (or most of it) for a RAM drive when the unit has a 2 GB Memory configuration. So even if the memory management routines are not re-written, perhaps we can cheat and leave the current implementation alone and just re-write some RAM drive code; I am guessing they implemented the this standard somewhat arbitrarily since at the time of Classic Mac OS, they never dreamed that users would want, need, or even be able to afford more than a 1GB of RAM. So they probably picked a really high starting point (512MB) just in case they needed more room for juggling the low level assembly stuff later on... which again, does not make sense, since the finder does not eat up the first 512MB when the memory configuration is 1.5GB or less)... Is it possible that the RAM above 1.5GB is remapped to the first 512MB  and that 1.5GB is the real ceiling ?  If not, way does the lower memory only get effected when the physical memory is above 1.5 GB ?

At any rate, to Simplify, if we could steal, say 80% on the first 512 MB for a RAM drive (in a 2GB configuration), that would be mint !
Title: Re: Any one want to help build a community made OS 9.3?
Post by: nanopico on November 11, 2015, 09:10:05 PM
It sounds like there is desire to put focus in to memory usage and attempt to reclaim the memory the finder takes when 2 gb is installed, possibly given to a ram disk.
I accept this challenge and will put forth the efforts there.
Title: Re: Any one want to help build a community made OS 9.3?
Post by: nanopico on November 11, 2015, 09:12:19 PM
Just a little side note.  I'd like to thank everyone for contributing to this.  The input has been very helpful in giving me some direction.  Also to those who have questioned some ideas or poked holes in my plans, thank you very much.  This feedback is very useful as it does make me think and rethink and examine things in ways I may not have seen.  Oh the joys of a community that can have an actual discussion.!!! :)
Title: Re: Any one want to help build a community made OS 9.3?
Post by: Protools5LEGuy on November 11, 2015, 11:16:00 PM
It sounds like there is desire to put focus in to memory usage and attempt to reclaim the memory the finder takes when 2 gb is installed, possibly given to a ram disk.
I accept this challenge and will put forth the efforts there.

Thanks for taking your time weighting to develop 9.3.

True Multitasking in OS9 is noted?
 
Please don't forget to put light on developing drivers/extensions for any coreimage cards. I guess ALU PowerBooks/iBookG4/iMacG4 owners would like some support on their models too.

But most of us are PM G4 QS/MDD daw users. Take this page on JapaMac as a list. There are 15 candidates to test.  :o http://www.jcsenterprises.com/Japamacs_Page/Blog/4B4B7BA2-7ABB-47F1-87AC-B03D37942BEE.html (http://www.jcsenterprises.com/Japamacs_Page/Blog/4B4B7BA2-7ABB-47F1-87AC-B03D37942BEE.html) I only have a GeForce 5200 128 Mg still not flashed for Mac. Since I digout OS9 experience would be bad with that I forget about it. If you are really interested I could flash it to make some tests but I can be a better tester in the MDD 2 Gigs area.

In fact I have a MDD 866 dual with 2 gigs of ram. For any test just PM. It has an ASUS Geforce2 with 64 Megs.

I also suggest nanopico to use the DieHard DAW http://macos9lives.com/smforum/index.php?topic=2716.0 (http://macos9lives.com/smforum/index.php?topic=2716.0) as the "MacOS 9.2.2" to improve and to be the bed of all tests. It is sorted out clean enought to be a test field. And to be fair, it is 2015 and 8 gig footprint for an OS is "normal".  I have it on my 4 PM, from a G3 450 to the GHz Dual to the 800QS to the MDD.

Any light over the files missing on the wayback machine? You said you had something not covered yet. My sources are here http://macos9lives.com/smforum/index.php?topic=1931.0 (http://macos9lives.com/smforum/index.php?topic=1931.0)

Title: Re: Any one want to help build a community made OS 9.3?
Post by: Protools5LEGuy on November 11, 2015, 11:35:55 PM
Also, developing a driver for those cheaps chinese USB to serial things could help the MIDI old serial stuff via RS232 instead of the $$$ route can help the forum (http://img6.eachbuyer.com/450x450/x1/p12/bl76_a.jpg)

http://es.eachbuyer.com/usb-to-rs232-serial-9-pin-db9-cable-adapter-convertor-p3402.html?currency=EUR&from=pla&gclid=CPm30NetiskCFWoJwwodLLMF_g (http://es.eachbuyer.com/usb-to-rs232-serial-9-pin-db9-cable-adapter-convertor-p3402.html?currency=EUR&from=pla&gclid=CPm30NetiskCFWoJwwodLLMF_g)

But don´t take this as the first on the list. Any advance giving back even a bit of  memory to the user would be AWESOME.

We should find what is common between OS9 and Panther to port graphics drivers. iMic from ThinkClassic put some light with his experiments on his iBook G4 and a iMacG4.
Title: Re: Any one want to help build a community made OS 9.3?
Post by: supernova777 on November 11, 2015, 11:38:20 PM
this is an oxymoron.. because. the usb technology itself would take away from the timing benefit of using serial...
while if it could work.. with a new driver.. it would enable it to work yes.. but not as well as a true serial connection..
the serial uart chip processing is superior for this type of data transmission!!!
Title: Re: Any one want to help build a community made OS 9.3?
Post by: Protools5LEGuy on November 11, 2015, 11:55:16 PM
Anyway, my first request for an 9.3 will be to implement the IP - midi rendezvous thing present since tiger to have networked machines midi connected via lan instead of plain midi cables as I do today.

A stronger OMS 2.3.9 ? Or a better FreeMIDI?

I can only see things from my perspective as DAW user.

Maybe even a flash hacked to report as actual (like in OSX PPC) could help some users willing to run desktop sites instead of mobiles with classilla or IE.

Trying to add too many things to Classic OS were too much for ALL Apple Inc. See Copland https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copland_%28operating_system%29 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copland_%28operating_system%29) .It was the bed for Jobs return to Apple, as most of the new features were present on NeXT OS
Title: Re: Any one want to help build a community made OS 9.3?
Post by: nanopico on November 12, 2015, 05:22:25 AM
Just an FYI on the 2GB/512mb finder thing.
I stated that the finder was considered part of the system and was in the lower parts of ram. 
I hadn't validated that yet, but the source I found that from is just wrong.
The actual apple documents relating to this do say the rom, toolbox and some extensions sit in the lower part of ram but mentions nothing of the finder. 
The finder is sitting at the top part of ram.  I will look into this more on the systems I have with 2 GB, but on a system with 320 MB the ram layout from the top down was Control Panels, Some extensions, Control Strip Modules then the Finder, so it's not even sitting right at the top.
The rom, toolbox and system extensions were in fact at the bottom of ram. 
The process manager, which acts as the loader/linker/launcher occupies all remains ram and it allocates the ram to applications as they launch.
This is still interesting in that if the machine with 2 GB lays out the same it still means that the system can address the memory some what properly. 

There are two places the wasted space could be allocated. 
1. in the process manager when it launches the Finder
2. In the finder after it launches it grows it's heap (I think this is less likely but still possible).

If any one else has theories on this let me know.

Additionally the North bridge drivers in resource fork of the rom appear to be completely useless.  I completely removed those resources and was still able to boot a system.  I still need to test this on a few other systems as it's possible they are only needed on certain systems.
So I now know one place the north bridge drivers aren't.

Any light over the files missing on the wayback machine? You said you had something not covered yet. My sources are here http://macos9lives.com/smforum/index.php?topic=1931.0 (http://macos9lives.com/smforum/index.php?topic=1931.0)
I had found someone else had downloaded and mirrored the content as well but got it from an earlier point in time so the missing pages where on that site.  I will go through my notes to find the site.  I have the file on one of my drives here, I'll find it again if anyone is interested.

this is an oxymoron.. because. the usb technology itself would take away from the timing benefit of using serial...
while if it could work.. with a new driver.. it would enable it to work yes.. but not as well as a true serial connection..
the serial uart chip processing is superior for this type of data transmission!!!

Agreed.  I have a usb to serial RS232  adapter that has drivers for OS 9 and the performance really isn't very good.

Anyway, my first request for an 9.3 will be to implement the IP - midi rendezvous thing present since tiger to have networked machines midi connected via lan instead of plain midi cables as I do today.

A stronger OMS 2.3.9 ? Or a better FreeMIDI?

I can only see things from my perspective as DAW user.

Maybe even a flash hacked to report as actual (like in OSX PPC) could help some users willing to run desktop sites instead of mobiles with classilla or IE.

Trying to add too many things to Classic OS were too much for ALL Apple Inc. See Copland https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copland_%28operating_system%29 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copland_%28operating_system%29) .It was the bed for Jobs return to Apple, as most of the new features were present on NeXT OS

I also do look at it from a DAW perspective, as well as can I do this sort of thing.  The hack for flash could be interesting.  I'm curious though if it's worth it as most flash content at this point is requiring a version of flash that is fairly new, and all though you can trick it into working, I've found the performance on to be terrible, but that is just the experience i have had.
Title: Re: Any one want to help build a community made OS 9.3?
Post by: nanopico on November 12, 2015, 07:32:22 AM
Any light over the files missing on the wayback machine? You said you had something not covered yet. My sources are here http://macos9lives.com/smforum/index.php?topic=1931.0 (http://macos9lives.com/smforum/index.php?topic=1931.0)

I have two drives I keep all my documents I've amassed for this project.  Apparently one bit the dust and it had some of this stuff on it.
I found most of it through google so I'll try to pull it up.

One thing I hadn't seen posted is this.
https://www.hackcanada.com/whacked/index.html
(Warning some of the links on that site are NSFW)

Specifically this is a tutorial on cracking.  More useful as a tutorial on disassembling.
https://www.hackcanada.com/whacked/Cracking/BasicMacCracking_1-4.sit.bin

Other documents I have are Inside Macintosh.
2 versions.  One from macos8 era and one with updates for OS 9.

I've also got the documentation on the Book E ISA for Power PC and the documents outline the ISA for basic PowerPC functionality.
I've also downloaded the developer.apple.com archive that as been referenced around here.  I've found the most useful stuff in the legacy folder in that.

For anyone wanting to learn more about Forth and Open Firmware
http://www.netneurotic.de/mac/openfirmware.html

Most of what I am using as far as documentation is Inside Macintosh, the Book E ISA spec and output from Macsbug.

Most other documents/info I'm finding is too old (like System 7 era) or inaccurate.
Title: Re: Any one want to help build a community made OS 9.3?
Post by: MacTron on November 12, 2015, 09:15:17 AM
Anyway, my first request for an 9.3 will be to implement the IP - midi rendezvous thing present since tiger to have networked machines midi connected via lan instead of plain midi cables as I do today.

Quote
A stronger OMS 2.3.9 ? Or a better FreeMIDI?

Quote
Maybe even a flash hacked to report as actual (like in OSX PPC) could help some users willing to run desktop sites instead of mobiles with classilla or IE.

Even Though these can be interesting things, nothing has to do with a Operating System by it self.
You should post a separate post for each one. Maybe you can achieve some answers ...  ;)

Title: Re: Any one want to help build a community made OS 9.3?
Post by: Protools5LEGuy on November 12, 2015, 10:34:17 AM
OK. Focus on NanopicoOS 9.3

Can we ask for things from Copland?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copland_%28operating_system%29 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copland_%28operating_system%29)

Quote
Following Hancock's plan, development of System 7.5 continued, with a number of technologies originally slated for Copland being incorporated into the base OS. Apple embarked on a buying campaign, acquiring the rights to various third-party system enhancements and integrating them into the OS. The Extensions Manager, hierarchical Apple menu, collapsing windows, the menu bar clock, sticky notes — all were developed outside of Apple. Stability and performance were improved by Mac OS 7.6, which dropped the "System" moniker.[37] Eventually, many features developed for Copland, including the new Finder and support for themes (the default Platinum was the only theme included) were rolled into Mac OS 7.7, which was rebranded as Mac OS 8.

With the return of Jobs, this rebranding also allowed Apple to exploit a legal loophole to terminate third-party manufacturers' licenses to System 7 and effectively shut down the Macintosh clone market.[38] Later, Mac OS 8.1 finally added the new filesystem and Mac OS 8.6 updated the nanokernel to handle preemptive tasks. Its interface was Multiprocessing Services 2.x and later, but there was still no process separation and the system still used cooperative multitasking between processes. Even a process that was Multiprocessing Services-aware still had a portion that ran in the blue box, a task that also ran all single-threaded programs (and the only task that could run 68k code).

The Rhapsody project was cancelled after several developer preview releases, support for running on non-Macintosh platforms was dropped, and it was eventually released as Mac OS X Server 1.0. In 2001 this foundation was coupled to the Carbon library and Aqua user interface to form the modern Mac OS X product. Prior to the Intel release of Mac OS X 10.4 (Tiger), Mac OS X also used the 'rootless blue box' concept in the form of Classic to run applications written for older versions of Mac OS. A number of features originally seen in Copland demos, including its advanced Find command, built-in Internet browser, "piles" of folders and support for video-conferencing, have reappeared in recent releases of Mac OS X as Spotlight, Safari, Stacks, and iChat AV, respectively, although the implementation and user interface for each feature is completely different.

Some Copland specs were in Tiger or Panther or Jaguar. Even some on 9.2.2
Title: Re: Any one want to help build a community made OS 9.3?
Post by: nanopico on November 12, 2015, 10:41:59 AM
Anyway, my first request for an 9.3 will be to implement the IP - midi rendezvous thing present since tiger to have networked machines midi connected via lan instead of plain midi cables as I do today.

Quote
A stronger OMS 2.3.9 ? Or a better FreeMIDI?

Quote
Maybe even a flash hacked to report as actual (like in OSX PPC) could help some users willing to run desktop sites instead of mobiles with classilla or IE.

Even Though these can be interesting things, nothing has to do with a Operating System by it self.
You should post a separate post for each one. Maybe you can achieve some answers ...  ;)

Dude I was actually just thinking about this same thing this morning.  I will definitely take this suggestion.  I'll also make a post on outline what is OS and what is not.  I'm willing to work on both, but I don't have much free time with a family, and a full time job as a Sr Developer (which always seems to take much more than 40 hrs/week) so I'll have to see where the interests lay from users to decide where I'll put my efforts.  What do you think of the idea of a poll with some OS features and a separate one for non-os related requests?

OK. Focus on NanopicoOS 9.3

Can we ask for things from Copland?

Yes, but I'm still in an investigative mode to figure out the best way to implement various things and where some of the internal things are.
At this point I'm open to all requests as long as everyone understand that they might not all be done. And as MacTron pointed out, some of these are not OS, but would be nice.
Title: Re: Any one want to help build a community made OS 9.3?
Post by: Protools5LEGuy on November 12, 2015, 10:56:10 AM
  What do you think of the idea of a poll with some OS features and a separate one for non-os related requests?


Great! I love polls! Maybe it would be clearer if we all know what is Mac OS 9.2.2

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_OS_9 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_OS_9)

Quote
Apple billed Mac OS 9 as including "50 New Features" and heavily marketed its Sherlock 2 software, which introduced a 'channels' feature for searching different online resources and introduced a QuickTime-like metallic appearance. Mac OS 9 also featured integrated support for Apple’s suite of Internet services known as iTools (later re-branded as .Mac, then MobileMe, which was replaced by iCloud) and included improved TCP/IP functionality with Open Transport 2.5.

Other features new to Mac OS 9 include:[5]

    Integrated support for multiple user accounts without using At Ease.
    Support for voice login through VoicePrint passwords.
    Keychain, a feature allowing users to save passwords and textual data encrypted in protected keychains.
    A Software Update control panel for automatic download and installation of Apple system software updates.
    A redesigned Sound control panel and support for USB audio.
    Speakable Items 2.0, also known as PlainTalk, featuring improved speech synthesis and recognition along with AppleScript integration.[6]
    Improved font management through FontSync.
    Remote Access Personal Server 3.5, including support for TCP/IP clients over Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP).
    An updated version of AppleScript with support for TCP/IP.
    Personal File Sharing over TCP/IP.
    USB Printer Sharing, a control panel allowing certain USB printers to be shared across a TCP/IP network.
    128-bit file encryption in the Finder.
    Support for files larger than 2 GB.
    Unix volume support.
    CD Burning in the Finder (introduced in Mac OS 9.1).
    Addition of a 'Window' menu to the Finder (introduced in Mac OS 9.1)

See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_OS_9#Version_history (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_OS_9#Version_history)
Title: Re: Any one want to help build a community made OS 9.3?
Post by: nanopico on November 12, 2015, 10:59:36 AM
  What do you think of the idea of a poll with some OS features and a separate one for non-os related requests?


Great! I love polls! Maybe it would be clearer if we all know what is Mac OS 9.2.2

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_OS_9 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_OS_9)

Quote
Apple billed Mac OS 9 as including "50 New Features" and heavily marketed its Sherlock 2 software, which introduced a 'channels' feature for searching different online resources and introduced a QuickTime-like metallic appearance. Mac OS 9 also featured integrated support for Apple’s suite of Internet services known as iTools (later re-branded as .Mac, then MobileMe, which was replaced by iCloud) and included improved TCP/IP functionality with Open Transport 2.5.

Other features new to Mac OS 9 include:[5]

    Integrated support for multiple user accounts without using At Ease.
    Support for voice login through VoicePrint passwords.
    Keychain, a feature allowing users to save passwords and textual data encrypted in protected keychains.
    A Software Update control panel for automatic download and installation of Apple system software updates.
    A redesigned Sound control panel and support for USB audio.
    Speakable Items 2.0, also known as PlainTalk, featuring improved speech synthesis and recognition along with AppleScript integration.[6]
    Improved font management through FontSync.
    Remote Access Personal Server 3.5, including support for TCP/IP clients over Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP).
    An updated version of AppleScript with support for TCP/IP.
    Personal File Sharing over TCP/IP.
    USB Printer Sharing, a control panel allowing certain USB printers to be shared across a TCP/IP network.
    128-bit file encryption in the Finder.
    Support for files larger than 2 GB.
    Unix volume support.
    CD Burning in the Finder (introduced in Mac OS 9.1).
    Addition of a 'Window' menu to the Finder (introduced in Mac OS 9.1)

See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_OS_9#Version_history (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_OS_9#Version_history)

Thanks.  I'm going to copy that over to the OS Development Request thread.

All requests should go to these threads now.
OS Level Requests
http://macos9lives.com/smforum/index.php?topic=2837.msg17840;

Non-OS, All Other Requests
http://macos9lives.com/smforum/index.php?topic=2838.msg17842;
Title: Re: Any one want to help build a community made OS 9.3?
Post by: Front 424 on November 17, 2015, 09:07:59 PM
I haven't really given an update as I don't have any thing to show at this point.

Au contraire!  Seems as if you have been busy figuring out a lot of things, that's definitely something to show.

After nearly 2 months of silence on this thread, my simple post provoked a flurry of new discussion I was surprised to see!

Very interesting, all of this.  I totally wish I could assist in this project.

Interesting also to see the two new threads about features/requests.  This a sign of progress, I do declare!  ;)

My very best to nanopico and all involved in this ambitious undertaking, as well as the forum in general.
Title: Re: Any one want to help build a community made OS 9.3?
Post by: iMic on November 30, 2015, 08:39:43 PM
Most of the development work I produced was from trial and error, seeing what would boot a system and what would cause it to fail. From what I can see in Nanopico's work they have a much better grasp of what needs to be done and where to find it in the system. Perhaps we may actually see some progress provided we focus on a few select areas to start with instead of attempting to cover all bases at once.

I had considered reopening this project and doing some additional work on it, but it was reaching the limits of my knowledge the last time I worked on it, so it's great to see someone more skilled working on this ongoing project as well.
Title: Re: Any one want to help build a community made OS 9.3?
Post by: Front 424 on December 01, 2015, 01:27:35 AM
iMic, me agrees with you!
Nanopico definitely has some low-level skills.  Machine-level that is!  ;D 
At least he is figuring some stuff out.  Too bad there aren't more people who could give him the assistance needed with that kind of knowledge.  Not exactly an easy job for one person.

I've been thinking that there must be some old school PPC mac programmers floating around somewhere that could at least give some advice on the inner OS and processor specific workings.  Anyone else thought that?  I know they must be out there.
Title: Re: Any one want to help build a community made OS 9.3?
Post by: nanopico on December 01, 2015, 06:18:25 AM
iMic, me agrees with you!
Nanopico definitely has some low-level skills.  Machine-level that is!  ;D 
At least he is figuring some stuff out.  Too bad there aren't more people who could give him the assistance needed with that kind of knowledge.  Not exactly an easy job for one person.

I've been thinking that there must be some old school PPC mac programmers floating around somewhere that could at least give some advice on the inner OS and processor specific workings.  Anyone else thought that?  I know they must be out there.

iMic, me agrees with you!
Nanopico definitely has some low-level skills.  Machine-level that is!  ;D 
At least he is figuring some stuff out.  Too bad there aren't more people who could give him the assistance needed with that kind of knowledge.  Not exactly an easy job for one person.

I've been thinking that there must be some old school PPC mac programmers floating around somewhere that could at least give some advice on the inner OS and processor specific workings.  Anyone else thought that?  I know they must be out there.

Thanks for the kind words.  Definitely feeling the support of this community.  Just hope I can pull off at least something in a reasonable time.

It sure would be fun to talk with any of the dev's that originally worked on any of the classic OS's on PPC and to get an idea of internal designs that are not publicly document.  If any one has names of them I'd be more than willing to reach out to them (though I'm sure because of NDA's I would probably not be able to get much info).
Title: Re: Any one want to help build a community made OS 9.3?
Post by: Protools5LEGuy on December 01, 2015, 06:47:37 AM
On the posted MacWorld number 1 we can see
Quote
the dev's that originally worked on any of the classic OS's on PPC

the ones that worked on 68k original mac. We could try to contact Steve Capps https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Capps (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Capps), for example.

Andy Hertzfeld https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andy_Hertzfeld (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andy_Hertzfeld)

 Maybe we can expand that list. The last number published of MacWorld on vintageapple.org are untill the G3 B&W, so maybe there is more info.

I am afraid that the OS 8-9 developers are not thinking on OS9 anymore.

The same for ATI-nVidia developers, but we will keep the faith.
Title: Re: Any one want to help build a community made OS 9.3?
Post by: nanopico on December 01, 2015, 07:24:01 AM
On the posted MacWorld number 1 we can see
Quote
the dev's that originally worked on any of the classic OS's on PPC

the ones that worked on 68k original mac. We could try to contact Steve Capps https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Capps (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Capps), for example.

Andy Hertzfeld https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andy_Hertzfeld (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andy_Hertzfeld)

 Maybe we can expand that list. The last number published of MacWorld on vintageapple.org are untill the G3 B&W, so maybe there is more info.

I am afraid that the OS 8-9 developers are not thinking on OS9 anymore.

The same for ATI-nVidia developers, but we will keep the faith.
It would be interesting to talk with them (if at all possible) and see if they know how much has changed since the original mac os Andy left apple in '84 so he might not know a lot about later development (but still an interesting person to talk with I bet) and Steve left in '96 so he would definitly be of interest (though he was working on newton towards the end of his days at apple).

Eric Traut wrote the 68k emulator used in 8.6 and up.  He would definitly have some knowledge about the parts of the system that I am of interest in.

Eric work's at Microsoft now.
Title: Re: Any one want to help build a community made OS 9.3?
Post by: Front 424 on December 04, 2015, 01:01:17 AM

Thanks for the kind words.  Definitely feeling the support of this community.  Just hope I can pull off at least something in a reasonable time.

Since all some of us can do is give encouragement anyway, hope it has a positive effect!

Quote
It sure would be fun to talk with any of the dev's that originally worked on any of the classic OS's on PPC and to get an idea of internal designs that are not publicly document.  If any one has names of them I'd be more than willing to reach out to them (though I'm sure because of NDA's I would probably not be able to get much info).

NDA's... never gave it much thought, but a possibility.
OS developers is a bit more ambitious than what I had in mind.. I was thinking maybe some seasoned classic programmers hanging out at some forum somewhere that might like a challenge (there has to be a developer community in a similar vein to this and other OS 9 venues), but the actual original architects of the thing wouldn't hurt, either.  ;)
Title: Re: Any one want to help build a community made OS 9.3?
Post by: DieHard on December 06, 2015, 12:23:20 AM
All I can Say is Santa (Diehard) is gonna send Nanopico some good stuff... he has been a very good boy this year :)
Title: Re: Any one want to help build a community made OS 9.3?
Post by: GigaG on December 06, 2015, 09:23:43 AM
I'd love to see Mac OS 9 be brought into the modern age. It's nice to see people interested in developing new or updated software (like Classilla) for the OS.
Title: Re: Any one want to help build a community made OS 9.3?
Post by: Protools5LEGuy on December 07, 2015, 11:32:55 AM

I've been thinking that there must be some old school PPC mac programmers floating around somewhere that could at least give some advice on the inner OS and processor specific workings.  Anyone else thought that?  I know they must be out there.

I tried to contact torvan but he didn't replied me about

Well, my name is Troy, and I have been on this earth for 47 years now, which means-yeah, I go back to the original Macintosh although my first one was the Mac Plus. Now i have 13 Macs ranging from that Plus to the 2014 Mini i7. I am running everything from System 6 to 10.11.1.

But out of all of them, it is OS9 that still has my heart. the way you can customize the look and feel, the speed it has on modernish hardware, and the apps designed by folks who knew what "Think Different" really meant. Plus machines that reflected personality as opposed to the prison like feel of the modern design. There is only so many rectangle aluminum boxes one can have. . . . .

I have worked for the other camp (Microsoft) in the MBU (Mac Business Unit) for way too many years before moving to Wachovia (more money, better schedule, closer commute) which as you know went up in flames during the housing crises earlier this decade. Since then I have been a stay-at-home husband and find this career is much more to my likes. 

But then again, I do "Think Different" anyway, and that is why I am a Mac man.

That remind me the old Microsoft MCU and remind me old youtube videos of MacOS8-9 MacWorld.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwZzkf-IReM
Ben Waldman 49:35 probably know a few MacOS9 developers he is still alive. He is on facebook with Hillary Clinton on some photos, but I can't get in contact to.
https://www.facebook.com/BenWaldman?fref=ts (https://www.facebook.com/BenWaldman?fref=ts)


Other Mac OS known developer is Theodore Gray

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematica (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematica)
Quote
Mathematica is split into two parts, the kernel and the front end. The kernel interprets expressions (Wolfram Language code) and returns result expressions.

The front end, designed by Theodore Gray, provides a GUI, which allows the creation and editing of Notebook documents containing program code with prettyprinting, formatted text together with results including typeset mathematics, graphics, GUI components, tables, and sounds. All content and formatting can be generated algorithmically or edited interactively. Most standard word processing capabilities are supported. It includes a spell-checker but does not spell check automatically as you type.

On wikipedia I cant see it working for Mac OS but on wayback machine
https://web.archive.org/web/20000817041956/http://www.wolfram.com/products/mathematica/what.html (https://web.archive.org/web/20000817041956/http://www.wolfram.com/products/mathematica/what.html)
Quote
Mathematica runs on an unusually wide array of operating systems: Windows 95/98/NT/2000, Mac OS, Linux, SunOS/Solaris, HP-UX, IRIX, AIX, Digital Unix, and compatible systems.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_Gray (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_Gray)
http://home.theodoregray.com/contact/ (http://home.theodoregray.com/contact/)

Quote
Finally, if you actually want to email me, you can do that at theodore@theodoregray.com. This goes directly to me, no filters other than spam filtering, no one checks it first. I am at your mercy.

Maybe he could lead us to documentation from Apple itself. He has been a OSX developer and iOS developer too, but maybe if someone reach him in a nostalgic day, we could get something. Maybe he can recall old colleages.  ;D

One thing is sure. Developers keep studying daily for them to be updated to sell products for the latest technology and not get themself obsolete, while some musicians can be happy with a 20 years old OS. We are different kind of Mac lovers!

In fact, any  CoreImage card going OS9 with 2D and 3D accel would be a gift.

you wont even get those to run under OSX, because all of them are aready x8. i think it is possible to use the PCI version of the geforce 5 in a G4, but it would run slower than a geforce 3 in a x4 slot and it would probably not support any kind of acceleration under OS9. you could as well use no graphics card at all.

I think all G4 wears up to AGPx4. Since the Gigabit Ethernet the AGPx4 were modded to help ADC monitors. This Mac http://www.everymac.com/systems/apple/powermac_g4/specs/powermac_g4_1.42_dp_mdd.html (http://www.everymac.com/systems/apple/powermac_g4/specs/powermac_g4_1.42_dp_mdd.html) could be built to order to a Radeon 9700 Pro.
From http://themacelite.wikidot.com/ati-radeon (http://themacelite.wikidot.com/ati-radeon) I see 9500, 9600, 9700, 9800 and FireGL X3-256MB
From http://themacelite.wikidot.com/nvidia-geforce (http://themacelite.wikidot.com/nvidia-geforce) I see a lot too

The complete list is on http://themacelite.wikidot.com/wikidownloads2 (http://themacelite.wikidot.com/wikidownloads2) Just look PPC

We need to get to the nVidia and ATI developers on that age too. They could  help with PowerPC OSX cards to have accel 2D and 3D in OS9.

To my knowledge the lack of modern drivers has left out all ALU powerbooks, ALL iBooks G4 and all iMac G4 past the 700/800Mhz modell.

You can check the graphics chipset in first ALU books should be OS9 able.

http://www.everymac.com/systems/apple/powerbook_g4/index-powerbook-g4.html (http://www.everymac.com/systems/apple/powerbook_g4/index-powerbook-g4.html)

This PowerBook G4 867 12" http://www.everymac.com/systems/apple/powerbook_g4/specs/powerbook_g4_867_12.html (http://www.everymac.com/systems/apple/powerbook_g4/specs/powerbook_g4_867_12.html) has NVIDIA GeForce4 420 Go and GeForce4 IS WORKING ON TOWERS
All I can Say is Santa (Diehard) is gonna send Nanopico some good stuff... he has been a very good boy this year :)
he has been a very good boy
Title: Re: Any one want to help build a community made OS 9.3?
Post by: nanopico on December 07, 2015, 12:20:25 PM
One thing is sure. Developers keep studying daily for them to be updated to sell products for the latest technology and not get themself obsolete, while some musicians can be happy with a 20 years old OS. We are different kind of Mac lovers!

This is very true, sort of.  Yes we are always studying to move forward and keep up so we don't become trapped in a corner.
The info learned over the years doesn't disappear, it may take a bit to recall it but it usually comes back pretty quick.
Most developers who are at least somewhat good, will learn concepts and general rules on how things work. Beyond that it's just another language and there really isn't a lot of difference.  If you specialize in OS dev, there are lot of concepts that are the same between modern OS's and 40 year old OS's, it's usually just the implementation that differs.  (Yes I am aware there are many many differences between modern software and ancient software, but the concepts of a lot of them are the same).

To me the hardest thing as a dev is not so much keeping up with the latest stuff, but learning old stuff that has little for documentation that can be found any more.  I've been a professional developer for the past 15 years.  I get paid for creating enterprise level applications.  One of the things we specialize in is porting legacy applications.  So I have to learn languages and systems from 15-30 years ago to know how they work so I can bring them up to the modern age.  This is what I do every single day. I've spent a lot of my own time learning, studying and exploring OS development.

Point is that with my background of being able to dig into old systems and learn them,  the level of knowledge I've attained in OS concepts and my love for Mac OS 9 is the big reason why I have decided to tackle this huge undertaking of extending the OS.
Title: Re: Any one want to help build a community made OS 9.3?
Post by: Jakl on December 07, 2015, 07:41:22 PM
Keep up the good work - I know I can only speak for myself but I appreciate all the effort you're putting in - from the bottom of my heart.  8)
Title: Re: Any one want to help build a community made OS 9.3?
Post by: IIO on December 07, 2015, 08:42:28 PM
lots

not sure what your point is. the geforce 4 is the card which G4 were mainly shipped with, so it should not be a surprise that it works.

only x8 cards dont work in OS9 because they dont like x4 slots.
Title: Re: Any one want to help build a community made OS 9.3?
Post by: nsputnik on December 07, 2015, 09:25:23 PM
I think you all might better spend your time expanding SheepShaver.  Getting USB working through the host machine would be wonderful.  The fact is that the hardware machines that would run a 9.3 will not last forever and there are few parts available to fix them.  But SheepShaver can last forever, even if the host OS's are abandoned there will probably be emulators, allowing for nested emulation.

Or, if Steve Chamberlin and Till Harbaum can help or recommend some way to have a hobbyist PPC computer manufactured and then firmware written as they have with MIST FPGA 68k I can see 9.3 making sense.
http://www.bigmessowires.com/2015/10/22/plus-too-mac-replica-new-progress/
http://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/1272302-are-there-any-powerpc-dev-boards-for-hobbyists/

Maybe it can run on this?
https://www.power.org/solution/p-cubed/

Here is a new emulator that seems to be a sort of MAME for computers:
http://wiki.qemu.org/Main_Page

Thats good since this project seemed to be stalled out: http://pearpc.sourceforge.net/about.html
Title: Re: Any one want to help build a community made OS 9.3?
Post by: nanopico on December 08, 2015, 05:13:17 AM
I think you all might better spend your time expanding SheepShaver.  Getting USB working through the host machine would be wonderful.  The fact is that the hardware machines that would run a 9.3 will not last forever and there are few parts available to fix them.  But SheepShaver can last forever, even if the host OS's are abandoned there will probably be emulators, allowing for nested emulation.

Or, if Steve Chamberlin and Till Harbaum can help or recommend some way to have a hobbyist PPC computer manufactured and then firmware written as they have with MIST FPGA 68k I can see 9.3 making sense.
http://www.bigmessowires.com/2015/10/22/plus-too-mac-replica-new-progress/
http://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/1272302-are-there-any-powerpc-dev-boards-for-hobbyists/

Maybe it can run on this?
https://www.power.org/solution/p-cubed/

Here is a new emulator that seems to be a sort of MAME for computers:
http://wiki.qemu.org/Main_Page

Thats good since this project seemed to be stalled out: http://pearpc.sourceforge.net/about.html

This may be true, but there are three reasons for targeting the OS to update.
1. To support newer hardware so that we are not dependent on old hardware that will become more and more scarce.
2. Updating the OS can actually add improvements to make it work better under emulations.
3. It's a challenge that's fun.

I have considered offering to help with Sheepshaver in the future.  Having a more detailed understanding of the OS to run in an emulator can help improve the emulator as well.
Title: Re: Any one want to help build a community made OS 9.3?
Post by: Mat on December 08, 2015, 05:56:33 AM
nsputnik , I´d like that you consider a few more thoughts about your posting:

•) Emulation
Emulation is never the real thing! I´ve never used Sheepshaver, but my experiances with "Classic" from Mac OS X show me that this is not comparable with a native OS!
I don´t think that with a reasonable amout of work a good PPC emulator can be done that makes Mac OS 9 really usable for everyday task.

•) We are not talking about Retro Hardware! People are really using their Mac OS 9! All the hardware stuff for music for example (see the Protools hardware, ...) will never be usable with an Emulator or an FPGA machine.

•) FPGA/MiST
The MiST is a nice plattform for 80ies Atari Stuff (games,...), but it has even not enough computing power for real recent Atari programs, if we are talking about modern Atari-usage. If it comes to Internet usage, it is totally underpowered, and we are even not talking about FreeMiNT usage (a modern Atari Multitasking System). The situation with FPGAs will not change much in near future, and a G4 will not be outpowered by any End-User-FPGA in the next 15 to 20 years. Beside the fact, that modelling a G4 core is a real huge task! You would need a good team working on it for years! Se how long Wolfgang Förster needed for the 68030 for his Suska boards (and the MiST just got a 68000), can you imagine how complicated a G4 core woudl be? Belive me I know what I am talking about.

•) Hardware Availability
You get G4s for free or the real good stuff like MDDs for 100 bucks recently. And not many people like to use them recently. We are taking about 30 Million computers or something that can boot Mac OS 9 natiely. I am quite sure that the availability of native Mac OS 9 hardware is of no concern the next one or two decades.
Title: Re: Any one want to help build a community made OS 9.3?
Post by: MacTron on December 08, 2015, 07:30:41 AM
I think you all might better spend your time expanding SheepShaver.
We have real hardware with G4s between 1Ghz and 2Ghz, therefore emulators like SheepShaver are absolute out of business, especially if they run in x86 CPUs that can't actually emulate a  PPC, the future ARM version may have a better lucky ...
Title: Re: Any one want to help build a community made OS 9.3?
Post by: DieHard on December 08, 2015, 09:54:37 AM
Dear nsputnik,

Please do not feel like we are beating you up, and we do appreciate your input... but I will quote myself from our main website in response to your post...

Quote
There is no "Class" in "Classic"
Without getting too bogged down in the technical jargon; the computer must be capable of booting to Mac OS 9 directly and without OS X present whatsoever. This is as opposed to running OS 9 via the “Classic Environment” (a hardware and software abstraction layer in Mac OS X that allows OS 9 applications to run on Mac OS X). The main problem with Classic is that it does not allow the direct access to hard drives and audio cards (if you're building an audio or video studio Mac). Retro gaming also benefits greatly from booting directly to OS 9. Tiger was the last to support the Classic Environment and Leopard and Lion need to "shave sheep," so take my advise and spend less money and get some classic hardware for your classic OS
Title: Re: Any one want to help build a community made OS 9.3?
Post by: nsputnik on December 08, 2015, 10:05:49 AM
nsputnik , I´d like that you consider a few more thoughts about your posting:

•) Hardware Availability
You get G4s for free or the real good stuff like MDDs for 100 bucks recently. And not many people like to use them recently. We are taking about 30 Million computers or something that can boot Mac OS 9 natively. I am quite sure that the availability of native Mac OS 9 hardware is of no concern the next one or two decades.

OK, I get it but it but let's be honest, most of those machines are in landfills, as much as it pains me to think about this.  And what happens when a power supply goes out?  These machines are ok for the time being but the goal should be to eventually migrate to modern hardware like PCubed (if it is actually available).
Title: Re: Any one want to help build a community made OS 9.3?
Post by: nsputnik on December 08, 2015, 10:07:50 AM
nsputnik , I´d like that you consider a few more thoughts about your posting:

•) FPGA/MiST


I am not suggesting you get OS9 to run on FPGA/MiST, I know it will not work. But on something modern like PCubed https://www.power.org/solution/p-cubed/
Title: Re: Any one want to help build a community made OS 9.3?
Post by: nsputnik on December 08, 2015, 10:10:55 AM

This may be true, but there are three reasons for targeting the OS to update.
1. To support newer hardware so that we are not dependent on old hardware that will become more and more scarce.
2. Updating the OS can actually add improvements to make it work better under emulations.
3. It's a challenge that's fun.

I have considered offering to help with Sheepshaver in the future.  Having a more detailed understanding of the OS to run in an emulator can help improve the emulator as well.

Ok, point taken, everyone.
Title: Re: Any one want to help build a community made OS 9.3?
Post by: Mat on December 08, 2015, 10:52:55 AM
These machines are ok for the time being but the goal should be to eventually migrate to modern hardware like PCubed (if it is actually available).
I really belive that your analysis is wrong. There is no problem in getting Mac Os 9 hardware at all. Have a look at the 68k Macs. There is no problem to get 68k Macs as well, and those are 20 years old now. I can send you some 68k Macs if you need them ;)
The point I am seeing is that the availability of High End upgrades is bad. Some 2GHz G4s would be needed for a reasonaable price, sure. But as said there are enough MDDs out there working quite well. Any "development energy" is - in my opinion - better used for the user experiance, some file format problems and such, than in trying to bring Mac OS 9 to a new unsupported hardware.

I am not suggesting you get OS9 to run on FPGA/MiST, I know it will not work. But on something modern like PCubed https://www.power.org/solution/p-cubed/
I completely got your point, even in the first posting! And of course I had a look at the pcubed link.
I just wanted to make clear that the MiST is some underpowered Retro hardware, and of course not even as fast as some original Ataris like the TT from 1989 or the Falcon. It is a ST replacement, and there is much more needed for more modern computers like the TT/Falcon or an 68k Mac.
There is simply no chance the upcoming 10 or 15 years to use FPGAs (if we can agree that FPGA farms from chip manufacturers are out of the reach for endusers) - so we are talking about cheap - let´s say below 1000 Euro - FPGAs for configuring any modern PPC CPU.
And don´t forget that there are still "G4" CPUs in production and ongoing usage.

So; no, I do not see any point in wasting time (well at least it is always the time and decision of the inolved developers and not ours to decide) with any shaggy emulator or underpowered and yet incompatible hardware.

What we would need is some cheap hardware upgrades, or OS modifications to run our OS at G5s or such fast hardware.
Title: Re: Any one want to help build a community made OS 9.3?
Post by: MacTron on December 09, 2015, 07:12:23 AM
http://mcosre.sourceforge.net/index.html

McOS Re is a project dedicated to re-creation and improvement of the Traditional Mac OS.
Title: Re: Any one want to help build a community made OS 9.3?
Post by: nanopico on December 09, 2015, 08:03:57 AM
http://mcosre.sourceforge.net/index.html

McOS Re is a project dedicated to re-creation and improvement of the Traditional Mac OS.

I reached out to this guy to collaborate.  We'll see what happens.
Title: Re: Any one want to help build a community made OS 9.3?
Post by: cc333 on December 09, 2015, 09:33:49 PM
I think this is spectacular!

I've been following iMic's thread over at TC, and I even tested a few things for him (I have an A1106 AlBook, and a few 12" AlBooks that make for perfect testing grounds). That being said, I'd be glad to try things out on here if anybody comes up with anything (such as patched Mac OS ROMs).

Let's keep up the good work! I'd *love* to see Mac Os 9 boot natively on my Quad G5!!

c
Title: Re: Any one want to help build a community made OS 9.3?
Post by: Protools5LEGuy on December 16, 2015, 04:20:49 PM
Just make a call on MacRumors.

http://forums.macrumors.com/threads/any-one-want-to-help-build-a-community-made-os-9-3.1945040/ (http://forums.macrumors.com/threads/any-one-want-to-help-build-a-community-made-os-9-3.1945040/)

Quote
eyoungren

    I cannot begin to fathom the legal issues that may arise out of this.

    First and foremost there is the OS9 EULA. Then you're talking distribution of a copyrighted OS (I would assume this project is so not just the devs would be using it and that it would be provided free).

    It'd be one thing if Apple put OS9 in the public domain, but everything from 7.6.1 and up is not public domain.

    There are apps that modify certain things of course so you can get versions of OS9 on unsupported Macs. But those are apps and not code rewrite.

    I applaud the effort, but I don't see macos9lives existing for very long if this gets out. Lawsuits, Cease and Desist and takedown orders have a way of torpedoing things.

    Just my take…unless you tell me someone's found some legal loophole?
     

Quote
    Going by info I've seen in the past of such OS 7-9 projects it looks more like creating custom enablers & drivers to support newer hardware or add functions that a 3rd party program wasn't allowed under the original Apple Developer Connection terms.

    In my opinion its still a legal nightmare, ADC had strict toolbox access limitations for non-hardware developers and for example if someone had worked at Apple at any point in time could be in breach of employee knowledge--ReactOS was forced into a code audit by Microsoft when suspicions of insider knowledge due to certain frameworks being able to be installed for Internet Explorer 6.0 to work/run.

    Having said that, since I deal with OpenSource projects often I've been afraid to accept a job at Microsoft as off-the-clock work could be subject to employee side project audits.
     


Quote
Yeah, still not something I would touch even if I knew how to code.

Writing enablers for newer hardware is one thing. Aggregating it all together with the OS, advertising it as a new version build of that OS and then distributing it is just red meat for lawyers.

I could answer this guys at MacRumors, but my english skills won't make it justice.
Title: Re: Any one want to help build a community made OS 9.3?
Post by: Protools5LEGuy on December 16, 2015, 04:24:25 PM
I reached Adam Albrec (artphotodude), author of Quicktime teatre for OS9, about his opinion on this.

Quote
    I have done a few things for OS9, but really I mostly develop for OSX like these:
    http://macintoshgarden.org/apps/ppc-media-center-watch-modern-internet-video-ppc-macs-running-104105

    http://macintoshgarden.org/apps/working-powerpc104-twitter-client

    http://macintoshgarden.org/games/doom-legacy-wad-launcher-0

    http://macintoshgarden.org/apps/burn-barrell-force-delete-app

    The biggest problems with OS9 is that its small 1.5GB of maximum ram allocation (including virtual memory), greatly hampers what can now be done on it, and as you have probably heard, the libraries for it are hopelessly behind.  Some libraries could be ported, but without even a good Python interpreter, the usefulness is very difficult to improve on.

    Besides every G3 will already run it, and most G4s will boot natively.  Never have cared for classic in OSX.    You BEST bet for doing what you suggest, would be to mod OSX to behave more like OS9.  It is far closer to current standards for design purposes.

Title: Re: Any one want to help build a community made OS 9.3?
Post by: Custos on December 16, 2015, 05:54:05 PM
Your English is acually pretty damn good PT. Even just support for newer hardware would be a major leap for the community. We really need someone with good coding skills to write drivers for us. Maybe even donate money/hardware (
to test drivers)
 to a person capable of writing drivers
Title: Re: Any one want to help build a community made OS 9.3?
Post by: nanopico on December 16, 2015, 07:34:58 PM
I'm not really sure what to say here, other than
So let's not bill it as 9.3.  It's just third party patches to the system.
Title: Re: Any one want to help build a community made OS 9.3?
Post by: Front 424 on December 17, 2015, 02:45:52 AM
I'm not really sure what to say here, other than
So let's not bill it as 9.3.  It's just third party patches to the system.

I agree.  It's funny, but that numbering convention had been in the back of my mind.  "I wonder what would happen if OS 9.3 were announced?"  It's unfortunate there isn't at least an appreciation or sense of humor when big corp/big money is involved when it comes to long discontinued software AND hardware.
The above quoted persons concerning legality are something to be heeded, to a point.

But don't lose heart!

http://www.callapple.org/software/announcing-apple-iigs-system-6-0-2/

Old IIGS enthusiasts named their updated OS as the next version.  Allegedly another update is in the works.  Just thought I would mention that.

It would ultimately be nice to have a name for this aggregated effort and any extensions and patches as a collective install package.  Really it would.  Something that likeminded people could point to and say "If you want to get OS 9.2 working on X system, use the latest version of _____"

A really cocky name would be "OS 9 XLR8R"  ;)
Or OS 9 Extended or something. 

Damn the naming conventions! 

You've got the right idea, anyhow, and you have much support from us.  Best of luck with some of your prospective collaborators, like the OS Re project.  I've lost track of which thread that was in, but that seemed promising.

Closing thought.  Wouldn't it be a good idea to have a central thread, like a pinned topic where the several ongoing threads are located regarding getting os 9 going on later machines?  It's kind of spread out and I for one am a bit confused by all the different topics being scattered across multiple forum entries.  For example, there is one about the 1.5gb ram limit, but that is its own thread, and then there are several about about improving 9.2 as well as some relevant discussion in emulation topics.
Maybe I'm the only one losing track of all the intersecting discussions that all converge on this topic?
Title: Re: Any one want to help build a community made OS 9.3?
Post by: nanopico on December 17, 2015, 07:29:07 AM
Closing thought.  Wouldn't it be a good idea to have a central thread, like a pinned topic where the several ongoing threads are located regarding getting os 9 going on later machines?  It's kind of spread out and I for one am a bit confused by all the different topics being scattered across multiple forum entries.  For example, there is one about the 1.5gb ram limit, but that is its own thread, and then there are several about about improving 9.2 as well as some relevant discussion in emulation topics.
Maybe I'm the only one losing track of all the intersecting discussions that all converge on this topic?

I agree this would be useful. I've tried to put them where they are relevant, but I'm not always sure either.

Maybe a child board would be better as having a single thread with multiple topics get's kind of confusing too.
Title: Re: Any one want to help build a community made OS 9.3?
Post by: Protools5LEGuy on December 17, 2015, 09:42:03 AM
My reply on MacRumors:
Quote
Nanopico has said those will be third party patches to the system. You could consider addons to original 9.2.2 OS.

Quote
    First and foremost there is the OS9 EULA. Then you're talking distribution of a copyrighted OS (I would assume this project is so not just the devs would be using it and that it would be provided free).

The MacOS9Lives! page has been the best mirror for latest 9.2.2 OS for years without a single call from Apple. They are more worried about iPhones and iPads than on Obsolete hardware/software as all Macrumors PowerPC members know. They simply do not care a shit about MacOS9. They also do not care much about OSX PPC.

We have regular access to Apple Developer Conference (ADC) thru Internet Archive. It is more or less open. At least MacOS7 to 9 and most of MacOSX. No one has to be agree with the EULA to reach those documents.

Some topics we are sorting out:
The 2040 issue. http://macos9lives.com/smforum/index.php?topic=2862.0
Mac OS 9 Development Requests (Application and Non-OS Level) http://macos9lives.com/smforum/index.php?topic=2838.0
Mac OS 9 Development Requests (OS Level Items) http://macos9lives.com/smforum/index.php?topic=2837.0
H264 codec, the "video game" is over in Mac Os 9. http://macos9lives.com/smforum/index.php?topic=2403.0
MacOS 8&9 Devices doc. for drivers develop http://macos9lives.com/smforum/index.php?topic=1931.0
Mac OS 9.2.2 Maximum RAM and Real world observations http://macos9lives.com/smforum/index.php?topic=2101.0
That post derived on
1.5GB Limit (some answers) http://macos9lives.com/smforum/index.php?topic=2860.0

Closing thought.  Wouldn't it be a good idea to have a central thread, like a pinned topic where the several ongoing threads are located regarding getting os 9 going on later machines?  It's kind of spread out and I for one am a bit confused by all the different topics being scattered across multiple forum entries.  For example, there is one about the 1.5gb ram limit, but that is its own thread, and then there are several about about improving 9.2 as well as some relevant discussion in emulation topics.
Maybe I'm the only one losing track of all the intersecting discussions that all converge on this topic?

I agree this would be useful. I've tried to put them where they are relevant, but I'm not always sure either.

Maybe a child board would be better as having a single thread with multiple topics get's kind of confusing too.

Nanopico, this is your mother post. I think I have quoted every child post. Ask DieHard if he wants to make a child board for all those post on improving 9.2.2, But the H264 is in Codec childboard, others are on OS9 on unsupported hardware, etc. We are open to make changes if it is needed. Now this post is sticky for to be easy to find to everyone.

I guess, in the end, this Any one want to help build a community made OS 9.3? post will be 3 times longer than Downgrade firmware of FW800 for OS9 comp. post, will have more of us understanding how OS9 works, some more help will come and we will achieve some things.

Thanks nanopico for your valuable time!
Title: Re: Any one want to help build a community made OS 9.3?
Post by: nanopico on December 17, 2015, 11:08:01 AM
Just an FYI,  with the holidays here I won't be doing much if any work with this for the next couple of weeks (in case any one comes looking for an update, don't expect one). But come January I will be going head first into this.  Hopefully I can get something at least interesting accomplished in the not too distant future.

As for the legal side of it (and trust me I'm no lawyer here), there is a part of me that just wan't to go straight to apple and ask for their blessing on this, but that may or may not be a good idea.  Probably won't happen, but it might amuse me for a few days after they say "nope, not going to happen"
Title: Re: Any one want to help build a community made OS 9.3?
Post by: nanopico on January 04, 2016, 08:00:55 AM
So the polls for development updates are now closed.
If you want to see where they ended here's two convenient links for you to look at.

http://macos9lives.com/smforum/index.php?topic=2891.0
http://macos9lives.com/smforum/index.php?topic=2890.0

Thanks to those of you who voted.  This feedback is invaluable and really helps me establish the direction to go.

I'm currently trying to figure out the actual effort (how much time I still need to invest in research, design and coding) for the items.
Based on the votes and the effort I'll provide the things I will actually be tackling and in what order.

I've been reading all of Inside Macintosh (there is a lot of pages there) and I have to say the amount of API's documented in there, it would be possible for someone to re implement the entire system new (though that would be a massive effort with little return), but there is general documentation on how things like have been suggested would be implemented and enough documentation in of the individual areas to find the areas needing patching. 

More to come in 2016!!!!
Title: Re: Any one want to help build a community made OS 9.3?
Post by: mrhappy on January 04, 2016, 12:36:59 PM

More to come in 2016!!!!

AWESOME!!! ;D ;D
Title: Re: Any one want to help build a community made OS 9.3?
Post by: IIO on January 05, 2016, 11:41:02 AM
I reached out to this guy to collaborate.  We'll see what happens.

last post on his site is from 2008. :)
Title: Re: Any one want to help build a community made OS 9.3?
Post by: nanopico on January 05, 2016, 12:05:56 PM
I reached out to this guy to collaborate.  We'll see what happens.

last post on his site is from 2008. :)
Yeah I saw that too so I wasn't really holding out too much hope, but hey nothing gained if you don't try.  The only failures come from those who don't even try. (Or maybe that's just my opinion)
Title: Re: Any one want to help build a community made OS 9.3?
Post by: nanopico on January 11, 2016, 11:36:58 AM
Small tiny update. (I'm a bit busy right now so I haven't gotten a timeline of dev projects to update OS 9 yet).

Two notes.
One.
MacsBug loads early in the boot process (nothing new there), but looking through apple docs,  it loads in the upper part of RAM outside of that controlled by the process/memory managers.  This means that it is running in ram outside of the 1.5 GB limit! A normal program can't load up there and run correctly, but at least the OS is capable of addressing that memory and transferring control to something up there.

Two.
My assumptions on the boot process ( think I've listed them here before) are no longer assumptions/theories.  I found Apple documentation on the early boot process from open firmware to handing off to the nanokernel in the rom.
In case you don't feel like looking for my rambles from before, here is an overview of the boot process copied straight from Apple docs.

Quote
  • User presses power key. Between the time that the power key is pressed and the boot beep is heard, while the screen is still black, a ROM checksum is taken, the processor is checked, the interrupt controller is started, all the clocks are determined, the memory controller is initialized, NVRAM is checked, RAM is sized checked and initialized, and the L2 cache is sized and prepared (L2 cache is enabled in POST).
  • The POST code runs (preliminary diagnostics, boot beep, initialization, and setup). This is like similar code in an older Macintosh ROM, but it is different in that it does not contain code specific to an operating system.
  • Open Firmware initializes begins probing the hardware and the PCI bus to locate attached interfaces and hardware so that is can begin building the device tree.
  • Open Firmware loads the Mac OS ROM image file, based on defaults and the path settings found in NVRAM.
  • Open Firmware executes the Forth script in the bootinfo file, which contains information about the rest of the file and instructions to read both the Trampoline code and the Mac OS ROM file and place them into a temporary place in memory.
  • The Forth script transfers control to the Trampoline code, which functions as the transition between Open Firmware and the beginning of the Mac OS execution.
  • The Trampoline code gathers information about the system from Open Firmware, creates data structures based on this information, terminates Open Firmware, and moves the contents of memory to an interim location in physical memory space.
  • The Trampoline code transfers control to the Mac OS ROM initialization code.
A little more detail from the same set of documents
Quote
Here is a high-level view of the execution path taken when a NewWorld-based computer starts up.
  • The POST code runs (preliminary diagnostics, boot beep, initialization, and setup), with possible intervention in the mini nub, a small debugging tool.
  • Open Firmware initializes and begins execution, including building the device tree and the interrupt trees.
  • Open Firmware loads the Mac OS ROM file, based on defaults and NVRAM settings.
  • Open Firmware executes the Forth script in the Mac OS ROM file, which contains instructions to read both the Trampoline code and the compressed Mac OS ROM image and place them into a temporary place in memory.
  • The Forth script transfers control to the Trampoline code, which functions as the transition between Open Firmware and the beginning of the Mac OS execution.
  • The Trampoline code decompresses the Mac OS ROM image, gathers information about the system from Open Firmware, creates data structures based on this information, terminates Open Firmware, and rearranges the contents of memory to an interim location in physical memory space.
  • The Trampoline code transfers control to the HardwareInit routine in the Mac OS ROM bootinfo file.
  • The HardwareInit routine copies data structures to their correct places in memory, and then calls the NanoKernel.
  • The NanoKernel fills in its data structures and then calls the 68K emulator.
  • The 68K emulator initializes itself, then transfers control to the startup initialization code.
  • The startup initialization code begins execution, initializing data structures and managers, and booting the Mac OS.
Title: Re: Any one want to help build a community made OS 9.3?
Post by: mrhappy on January 12, 2016, 01:34:14 AM
Very interesting!!
Title: Re: Any one want to help build a community made OS 9.3?
Post by: Jakl on January 12, 2016, 04:06:48 AM
Sure is interesting!!
Title: Re: Any one want to help build a community made OS 9.3?
Post by: Mat on January 12, 2016, 04:11:43 AM
Hey nanopico, please keep up that good work! It is a joy to see you getting deeper and deeper into Mac OS 9! I hope you will find enough time this year to get some improvements up and running.
The entire posting about the boot process is very interresting.

This means that it is running in ram outside of the 1.5 GB limit! A normal program can't load up there and run correctly, but at least the OS is capable of addressing that memory and transferring control to something up there.
But that information is the most motivating one. I always hoped that making the additional memory (at least up to 2GB) available to the system itselve, at least as RAM- and Scratchdisk, more easily than for the programs. That would speed up several programs a lot.
Title: Re: Any one want to help build a community made OS 9.3?
Post by: nanopico on January 12, 2016, 11:24:15 AM
Here's the update I promised earlier regarding what my specific goals on developments will be.
(here comes the broken record part where I regurgitate what I sort of said earlier)
The polls I posted were great for letting me know what people want and the results of that were factored into this.
My goals of what prompted me to start down this also weighed in.
The last factor was what I felt would be of benefit in a general sense.
So here they are with a little explanation with each.  They are listed in order that I will tackle them.


I didn't put this on the list as I don't know exactly where it would fit with in the order of other items, but I will be trying to write an H264 codec. I will be working on this early on, but I'm really not sure when this would be done.

To avoid as much legal issue as possible I am going to try to refrain from reverse engineering as much as I can.  I will be relying heavily on official Apple documentation and Darwin source code (as a basis to determine how to control various chips and the order to initialize them).

So timing.  I hope to have something to show/test for item one around April/May.  I know this is a ways out, but I have a full time job as a developer that some times requires upwards of 80 hours a week (though pretty rare for that) and I have a family. 

This list may change over time as I dig deeper into this and re-assess the feasibility/effort required for these items.

Finally just to reiterate what I have said before, I make no promises that I will accomplish any of this (as I am only one person) and any help testing or developing any one can provide is greatly appreciated.  A big thanks should go out to those who helped get the machines run that were previously unsupported, their work was a big inspiration for me to even consider this sort of project.
Title: Re: Any one want to help build a community made OS 9.3?
Post by: DieHard on January 12, 2016, 12:40:15 PM
I am sure many will consider even 1 item finished on the list an amazing feat. 

We can provide coffee and donuts (and maybe some movie tickets to get the kids/wife out of your hair) while you work on this important task.  Thanks, as always :)
Title: Re: Any one want to help build a community made OS 9.3?
Post by: MacTron on January 12, 2016, 01:13:09 PM
This is in definitive a great project. !!!
I wish to said that I have a little background in Mac Os Pascal and C programing and I had compiled a few Linux programs. My knowledge in this area is small, but enough to know that exceed my capacities. :)
I'm only saying this, to avoid you to feel alone, may be at some point I can help a bit into testing and debugging some code ...
At some time in the past, I even worked in a few assembler hacks, may be it's time to re engage this task :) and let aside my "unwanted music" LOL
Title: Re: Any one want to help build a community made OS 9.3?
Post by: nanopico on January 12, 2016, 01:32:40 PM
I am sure many will consider even 1 item finished on the list an amazing feat. 

We can provide coffee and donuts (and maybe some movie tickets to get the kids/wife out of your hair) while you work on this important task.  Thanks, as always :)

The kid/wife get out of the house often enough and they both go to bed before I do so I still get some time (work is usually the bigger problem).

This is in definitive a great project. !!!
I wish to said that I have a little background in Mac Os Pascal and C programing and I had compiled a few Linux programs. My knowledge in this area is small, but enough to know that exceed my capacities. :)
I'm only saying this, to avoid you to feel alone, may be at some point I can help a bit into testing and debugging some code ...
At some time in the past, I even worked in a few assembler hacks, may be it's time to re engage this task :) and let aside my "unwanted music" LOL
If you are somewhat familiar with MacsBug and know c you can be a big asset in just figuring out various registers and instruction for hardware (such as video cards).
Title: Re: Any one want to help build a community made OS 9.3?
Post by: IIO on January 14, 2016, 02:25:28 AM
There is no problem in getting Mac Os 9 hardware at all. Have a look at the 68k Macs. There is no problem to get 68k Macs as well, and those are 20 years old now.

these things mainly depend on ones location and social connections.

a quick search on ebay germany gives you 220 results for "mac pro", 15,000 results for "apple g4", and 0 for "apple 68k".

but if you live in indeonesia and dont want to (or ant) buy from internet offers the situation looks different.
Title: Re: Any one want to help build a community made OS 9.3?
Post by: nanopico on January 14, 2016, 07:18:42 AM
I need some help from users out there.
To get things off the ground and running there are some hardware details I need.
As I don't have hardware for all the unsupported machines I ask any one out there who does have these machines to gather some details for me.
If you have an unsupported g4 then you have a machine I need details of.  What I'm currently looking for are CPU version numbers (PVR). I realize there are some lists out there, but they list all known cpu's and not exactly what machines they are in. (of course if you know a good location for that info, that would be great too.)

The info I need is out of Open firmware.  This should be unaltered details from open firmware.
I will post more detailed instruction on how to get this information if you are not familiar enough with open firmware to get this, when I am at home, but if you know how to get it then awesome.

So here's the exact details I need.

If you want to get the PVR for any G5's as well, I will take those (in the event I do actually get to trying to get OS 9 running on a G5).
Title: Re: Any one want to help build a community made OS 9.3?
Post by: MacTron on January 14, 2016, 08:29:54 AM
Here you have the full PVR list, G5 is not included  :'(  in case you need it:

https://github.com/tycho/pearpc/blob/master/doc/powerpc_pvr_list.txt

I have a unsupported eMac. It boot in to Mac Os 9 with the iMic ROM and the OF cpu swap trick. The big issue is the lack of video acceleration. I'll will post it's PVR as soon as I can.
Title: Re: Any one want to help build a community made OS 9.3?
Post by: nanopico on January 14, 2016, 08:56:39 AM
Here you have the full PVR list, G5 is not included  :'(  in case you need it:

https://github.com/tycho/pearpc/blob/master/doc/powerpc_pvr_list.txt

I have a unsupported eMac. It boot in to Mac Os 9 with the iMic ROM and the OF cpu swap trick. The big issue is the lack of video acceleration. I'll will post it's PVR as soon as I can.
I have that list thank you.  PearPC has another list that has the G5's in it that is shorter and appears to have only the models apple used.
http://pearpc.sourceforge.net/pvr.html

I'm looking to see what the pvr's are for the individual models to verify these lists and make sure any code I write accounts for any oddities.
Title: Re: Any one want to help build a community made OS 9.3?
Post by: Mat on January 15, 2016, 01:27:38 AM
There is no problem in getting Mac Os 9 hardware at all. Have a look at the 68k Macs. There is no problem to get 68k Macs as well, and those are 20 years old now.

these things mainly depend on ones location and social connections.

a quick search on ebay germany gives you 220 results for "mac pro", 15,000 results for "apple g4", and 0 for "apple 68k".

but if you live in indeonesia and dont want to (or ant) buy from internet offers the situation looks different.
Sure, you are right. It is always a problem that the male, white western users have access and many many others don´t. But still, emulation is absolutely NOT the way to go in my opinion.

I see nanopicos ideas about further developements as necessary and real improvements. An emulation that would be really usable at completely new hardware is not an good idea.
Title: Re: Any one want to help build a community made OS 9.3?
Post by: nanopico on January 25, 2016, 06:39:56 AM
I had a bit of an interesting theory over the past weekend.
We are trying to boot machines that are not supported by 9 but are supported by X.
In researching I know that open firmware loads the rom. Runs the forth script at the beginning of the rom. Transfers execution to the trampoline code (the elf executable I've discussed earlier). Initializes hardware based on info from open firmware via the open firmware client interface.
Once everything is initialized it tells open firmware to stop and transfers control to the initialization code in the loaded toolbox rom.
My first goal was to get support for the newer G4's that require an open firmware patch to boot into OS 9.  These cpu's do not require this patch to boot X.  BootX is the boot loader in OS X that does the same thing as the trampoline code in the OS 9 ROM.  BootX is open source so it can easily be modified.  It knows how to initialize these cpu's (as well as some of the hardware required for boot in the G5's).  If I were to take bootx and modify the code to load a toolbox rom instead of a mach kernel and then attach the toolbox rom as a payload to it (much like the toolbox rom is embeded in the rom file we normally boot) then we would in theory be able to get around the early boot problems for all OS X only machines.  This doesn't mean they will work after this stage, but it will fix the early boot and the detection of what's bootable by the system.

I realize that there is not a strong liking of OS X around here (and you can lump me into that crowd), but this idea is just stealing a boot loader from X that really doesn't have much to do with X, so I think this is a good idea.
Title: Re: Any one want to help build a community made OS 9.3?
Post by: DieHard on January 25, 2016, 08:16:52 AM

BootX is the boot loader in OS X that does the same thing as the trampoline code in the OS 9 ROM.  BootX is open source so it can easily be modified.   If I were to take bootx and modify the code to load a toolbox rom instead of a mach kernel and then attach the toolbox rom as a payload to it...

I realize that there is not a strong liking of OS X around here (and you can lump me into that crowd), but this idea is just stealing a boot loader from X that really doesn't have much to do with X, so I think this is a good idea.

This is a real break thru in my opinion !   We are NOT X-aphobic and I don't think anyone cares what dances across the screen before 9 boots... so please hack away at the Bootx code if you can make it load the OS9 ROM :)
Title: Re: Any one want to help build a community made OS 9.3?
Post by: nanopico on March 03, 2016, 06:12:45 PM
Sorry all, but I'm a little slow at things lately.

The route of bootx is becoming a very nice option.

One of the things I've found going through this is that it makes a lot of open firmware calls (which is to be expected).  The nice thing though is it's sort of documentation on what a lot of the forth words are for various hardware devices that need to be initialized early on.  On of those devices is the mmu. I still have a lot of digging to do, but it might be possible, and that's a big might, to enable the full 2GB of ram on some of the G4's through some creative open firmware scripts (well at least as early test I guess). 
Title: Re: Any one want to help build a community made OS 9.3?
Post by: nanopico on March 18, 2016, 06:39:22 AM
GOOD NEWS!!!!!

I've noticed there have been some people who have to go in and use an nvramrc script to change the cpu-version to make 9 bootable.
This works well and is usefull, but if you ever have to reset the nvram or if your batteries die and it resets then you have to re-apply this patch.  Yes it's not painful, but I'd rather not have to do it.

Now iMic did a lot of awesome work with hacking the boot script that loads the trampoline code that loads the toolbox.  So since his updates worked well I followed the same path.  I have updated the boot script in the rom file to check for a G4 cpu with a newer cpu-version that isn't supported and change it to one that is.  This does the same thing as the nvramrc but will never have to be re-applyed and will make booting easier for people who are not familiar with open firmware or are scared of it.

Currently the file I modified doesn't boot for two reasons.  One, when I edited it the creator/file types got messed up so you have to manually force open firmware to ignore that and load it anyway.  Two, I didn't get the file adjusted to make the trampoline/elf portion re-aligned ok.  It was really really late when I finished this up and needed to get to bed, but it was able to load and run the script and did set the cpu-version and did try to boot the trampoline code, it was just at the wrong location.

So once I get those two items fixed (hopefully this evening) I will have a new rom for people to test/enjoy.

This still doesn't provide full valid support for those cpu's, but it will get more machines the option too boot or at least boot far enough to figure out what else needs to be changed.
Title: Re: Any one want to help build a community made OS 9.3?
Post by: Protools5LEGuy on March 18, 2016, 06:49:44 AM
These updates just make my day!

Thanks!
Title: Re: Any one want to help build a community made OS 9.3?
Post by: MacTron on March 19, 2016, 09:06:22 AM
Great!
This will allow to those 7447 and 7448 upgrade cards to work without caring about the Open Firmware flashing :)
Title: Re: Any one want to help build a community made OS 9.3?
Post by: nanopico on March 19, 2016, 09:04:03 PM
And as promised (though a little later than mentioned)

I have tested this and have not had issues.  But having said that, I am not responsible if it does anything bad to your machine so test with caution.

I've modified it in a way that makes it generic.
It checks for a G4 and if present then checks the cpu version and modifies it if necessary.
This means it will boot on G3's and G4's that were already supported without modifying anything.

If it is not working I would appreciate the details of the machine it doesn't work on.

ROM File only
http://ww.gnerder.com/files/rom.sit

As a side note, when you've spent most of your career in languages like c, c# and the likes, Forth makes little sense at first.
Title: Re: Any one want to help build a community made OS 9.3?
Post by: IIO on March 22, 2016, 08:17:30 AM
are ROM files language specific? (they shouldnt?)
Title: Re: Any one want to help build a community made OS 9.3?
Post by: nanopico on March 22, 2016, 11:07:43 AM
are ROM files language specific? (they shouldnt?)
I'm not sure if they are or not.  They might be.
When looking at the resources in there it looked like it was only US English on the one I edited.
But I haven't really looked into it much.
Are you seeing some sort of issues related to this?
Title: Re: Any one want to help build a community made OS 9.3?
Post by: MacTron on March 22, 2016, 11:38:19 AM
are ROM files language specific? (they shouldnt?)

Yes, they are language specific. But if you use a Italian ROM, while the remaining system files are in French by example, you only have a couple of menu items in italian so It is perfectly usable. Or you can easily replace this language specific resources, because they are really few.
Title: Re: Any one want to help build a community made OS 9.3?
Post by: nanopico on March 22, 2016, 11:55:40 AM
are ROM files language specific? (they shouldnt?)

Yes, they are language specific. But if you use a Italian ROM, while the remaining system files are in French by example, you only have a couple of menu items in italian so It is perfectly usable. Or you can easily replace this language specific resources, because they are really few.

So should I provide localized rom's then? 
Title: Re: Any one want to help build a community made OS 9.3?
Post by: MacTron on March 22, 2016, 12:54:36 PM
So should I provide localized rom's then?

I think it isn't necessary. It will be a nightmare to provide a dozen or two of localized ROMs. If someone is using a localized System version and wish to localize your generic ROM, it should copy/paste a few resources with ResEdit and it's done :)
Title: Re: Any one want to help build a community made OS 9.3?
Post by: nanopico on March 22, 2016, 01:07:29 PM
So should I provide localized rom's then?

I think it isn't necessary. It will be a nightmare to provide a dozen or two of localized ROMs. If someone is using a localized System version and wish to localize your generic ROM, it should copy/paste a few resources with ResEdit and it's done :)

Works for me.

On a side note, has any one tried the ROM i worked up here and is it working?  I didn't get to do as much testing as I like and due to some remodeling at home, I'm not able to do much dev work at the moment.
Title: Re: Any one want to help build a community made OS 9.3?
Post by: IIO on March 23, 2016, 10:21:01 PM
are ROM files language specific? (they shouldnt?)

Yes, they are language specific. But if you use a Italian ROM, while the remaining system files are in French by example, you only have a couple of menu items in italian so It is perfectly usable. Or you can easily replace this language specific resources, because they are really few.

ok, so while it will work to replace it (well of course it does) it might still change a few words somewhere where the user will see it.

@nano:
having different language files would be nice, but i believe that it could be less work for you to supply an updater/patch instead of the whole ROM (i.e. without checking the file where the patch is applied but with description for what exact ROM file and version it was made.)

for/from what is it, btw? OS9General.dmg-style or a QS 2002 golden master OS9?)


Title: Re: Any one want to help build a community made OS 9.3?
Post by: MacOS Plus on March 24, 2016, 05:55:00 PM
Great!
This will allow to those 7447 and 7448 upgrade cards to work without caring about the Open Firmware flashing :)

  If nothing else happened aside from this it would be fantastic just by itself!  Not having to worry about the Open Firmware nonsense is great for the less technically-inclined users and also simply much less of a pain in the butt for the savvy.  Knowing that I wouldn't have to worry about the OF settings getting lost randomly would bring great peace of mind.  If it can be incorporated into the 9.2.2 restore image so we have a bootable CD that works all of the time with upgrade CPUs it would save me a lot of hell and messing around.  It would also give me the freedom to move one of my CPU upgrades between systems for testing much more easily.  The one in my Quicksilver required the installer program to make the OF edits, so it was a pain.  (I don't know how much of this becomes a moot point if the hack of bootx is successful.)

  The only other things I'd suggest in improving the current 9.2.2 Universal would be to keep the multiprocessing support out of the system folder by default, and also put the final ATI drivers in.  As I mentioned before, both of these snags hit me in the same system.  My video card wouldn't work without the final ATI update applied.  The only problem I had remaining after that was some of the extensions for the older ATI cards also had to be disabled in order to prevent a third freeze with the particular card I was using.  Oddly the ATI freezing issue only occurred on one of two MDD FW800s, I really don't know why.

  I know it's kinda outside the scope of the current 9.2.2 Universal restore method, but it would be nice if there was some mechanism to detect hardware and only copy the necessary ATI files.  Also, is there any plan to incorporate the hacked older version of multiprocessing support, that does work, into the restore image?  I am running it without issue after manually substituting it.
Title: Re: Any one want to help build a community made OS 9.3?
Post by: MacTron on March 25, 2016, 07:09:21 AM
Also, is there any plan to incorporate the hacked older version of multiprocessing support, that does work, into the restore image?  I am running it without issue after manually substituting it.
About what "hacked older version of multiprocessing support" are you talking about?
What version works with what CPU upgrade?
Because I have a NewerTech 7448 on a Sawtooth and I have tried every thing, -even the Sonnet hacked multiprocessing support file - and nothing works.
Title: Re: Any one want to help build a community made OS 9.3?
Post by: MacOS Plus on March 25, 2016, 08:44:26 PM
Also, is there any plan to incorporate the hacked older version of multiprocessing support, that does work, into the restore image?  I am running it without issue after manually substituting it.
About what "hacked older version of multiprocessing support" are you talking about?
What version works with what CPU upgrade?
Because I have a NewerTech 7448 on a Sawtooth and I have tried every thing, -even the Sonnet hacked multiprocessing support file - and nothing works.

  I don't know if it works for all machine/upgrade combinations but it is working on my FW800 with Sonnet MDX 1.8GHz.  The two CPUs are recognized by System Profiler using the file I found.  Waking from sleep doesn't return video but that could be for a number of other reasons including purely the current video card and extension (GeForce 2MX ADC), or the fact it's a FW800 motherboard.  I prefer to not sleep most of my Macs anyway because this has been trouble at times even under what should be ideal circumstances, most often video card related.  The file on the Universal 9.2.2 CD most certainly didn't work on my setup at all, so I at least see my current arrangement as a vast improvement.

I found the file download via this posting on the 68kmla.org forums:

https://68kmla.org/forums/index.php?/topic/15421-yay-sonnet-18ghz-duet-on-its-way/ (https://68kmla.org/forums/index.php?/topic/15421-yay-sonnet-18ghz-duet-on-its-way/)
(See post #5)

The direct link to the file is:

www.vintagecomp.com/sell/Sonnet/updatedCPU.sit (http://www.vintagecomp.com/sell/Sonnet/updatedCPU.sit)

  I don't know if this file is the original that Sonnet hacked, or if it was a different one independently hacked.  It reports as Apple CPU Plugins - Mac OS CPU Software 4.5 - Version 3.5.  (I'm not sure how easy it would be to tell if it had different data internally from the Sonnet-hacked version.)  If that is already the one you have then perhaps it isn't 100% compatible with the NewerTech or the Sawtooth.  I have a NewerTech dual 1.8GHz in my Quicksilver (OSX 10.4/10.5) which I could test in my Sawtooth to see what happens.  I just have to locate the jumper settings and the installer again.  (It's been many years since it was installed in the QS.)

  In any case, it would be a hell of a lot better to have this file available than to see so many people never able to enable multiprocessing at all.  Perhaps it should be added to the list of things to test so that forum members can try it out on a wide range of platforms and report back.  Eventually someone better-versed in the system files might be able to dig into these files and figure out exactly what was altered and what, if anything, can be improved.
Title: Re: Any one want to help build a community made OS 9.3?
Post by: GaryN on March 26, 2016, 12:36:36 PM
I have the same setup in a 3,6. I think the MP file was written by Sonnet specifically for the MDX. Still worth a try though. I was wrong once before back in '02…
Title: Re: Any one want to help build a community made OS 9.3?
Post by: MacOS Plus on March 27, 2016, 09:09:18 AM
  You'd think it would have really put a dent in Sonnet's MP product sales if they'd never gotten it to work in all the other AGP machines except for the MDD.  Perhaps the first thing I'll do with my QS (before transplanting to the Sawtooth) is to do a 9.2.2 restore and test on that platform.  If it works there then I will try with either of my Sawtooths (I have two of them).

  Hopefully the MP files can eventually be analyzed by one of the 'brains' that is working on the OS9 and machine support updates so we know exactly how they work and how to patch them properly.  Perhaps a much later revision of the file could have the same patch(es) applied.
Title: Re: Any one want to help build a community made OS 9.3?
Post by: MacTron on March 27, 2016, 11:17:20 AM
ROM File only
http://ww.gnerder.com/files/rom.sit

@nanopico: the download link is not available.
can you please re-upload this file? I wish to perform some test with it ...
Title: Re: Any one want to help build a community made OS 9.3?
Post by: GaryN on March 27, 2016, 02:42:36 PM
  You'd think it would have really put a dent in Sonnet's MP product sales if they'd never gotten it to work in all the other AGP machines except for the MDD.
Not at all sure what you're talking about. I'm saying the MP file that works with the MDX was written specifically for the MDX. As I recall, finding that was no easy task. I'm thinking there may be others for the DP upgrades Sonnet made for the QS and AGP that are still in the haystack somewhere.
Title: Re: Any one want to help build a community made OS 9.3?
Post by: MacOS Plus on March 27, 2016, 03:12:11 PM
  You'd think it would have really put a dent in Sonnet's MP product sales if they'd never gotten it to work in all the other AGP machines except for the MDD.
Not at all sure what you're talking about. I'm saying the MP file that works with the MDX was written specifically for the MDX. As I recall, finding that was no easy task. I'm thinking there may be others for the DP upgrades Sonnet made for the QS and AGP that are still in the haystack somewhere.

  As you say, there must have been a file available to deal with the non-MDX systems, whether the file came from Sonnet or some other 3rd party.  That's exactly why I was wondering how MacTron was having trouble, since he said he'd tried "everything".  Given how much older a file version the hacked one I downloaded is versus the later stock Apple-supplied one in the 9.2.2 image, I am rather surprised it wouldn't work universally.  This seemed to suggest to me that this hacked file may have actually pre-dated the release of the Sonnet MDX CPUs.

  I'm really hoping that someone with more in-depth knowledge than I can delve into the various MP support files and sort this out.  At this point it's just guessing because I don't have the skill to properly probe these files for differences or to actually document the code structure or instructions present.
Title: Re: Any one want to help build a community made OS 9.3?
Post by: MacOS Plus on March 27, 2016, 09:05:35 PM
  Quick update - As promised I hooked up my Quicksilver, previously only running OSX, and I tried to boot it using the 9.2.2 drive I was already booting my MDD and FW800 machines with.  The upgrade processor in this system is a Giga Designs 7447a dual 1.8GHZ G4.  The substitute multiprocessing file that worked with the Sonnet MDX on the other machines froze the QS - no big surprise.  (Removing it booted the system as single 1.8GHZ processor - super-speedy still!)  The Giga Designs software under OSX has to be run first to separately enable OS9 booting capability via some sort of PRAM alteration (in addition to originally having to alter the firmware and nvram to boot OSX at all in the first place before installing the upgrade).

  The Sonnet installer itself is supposed to patch the Apple CPU Plugins file, however due to the large number of revisions of the file by Apple the process often fails without any indication, presumably because it doesn't find anything it recognizes how to patch.  Sonnet was supposed to have been emailing a patched file on request.  I am going to send them a message and see if they can still do this.

  I'm not done researching the issue yet.  I'll post my findings later.  One thing though that potentially affects the Sawtooth systems is that one revision of the motherboard is completely incompatible with multi-processor CPU modules.  This is documented in the appropriate support section on the Sonnet website.  (The direct link to the PDF file in question is http://www.sonnettech.com/support/downloads/manuals/sg4d_2g_addendum.pdf (http://www.sonnettech.com/support/downloads/manuals/sg4d_2g_addendum.pdf).  I'm going to check both of my Sawtooth boards to see if they are of the offending revision before I waste my time on an automatic dead end.
Title: Re: Any one want to help build a community made OS 9.3?
Post by: nanopico on March 28, 2016, 06:05:17 AM
ROM File only
http://ww.gnerder.com/files/rom.sit

@nanopico: the download link is not available.
can you please re-upload this file? I wish to perform some test with it ...

Isn't funny how you miss one little w and the link doesn't work?
http://www.gnerder.com/files/rom.sit
Title: Re: Any one want to help build a community made OS 9.3?
Post by: MacTron on March 28, 2016, 08:13:10 AM
Isn't funny how you miss one little w and the link doesn't work?
http://www.gnerder.com/files/rom.sit
Thank You.
I should realize about that ...  :-[
Title: Re: Any one want to help build a community made OS 9.3?
Post by: MacTron on March 28, 2016, 08:40:12 AM
The Multi processors software is originated at Daystar for the Genesis MP Mac compatible computer ( equipped dual CPU 604e series ) later acquired by Apple.
And this software was integrated in to Mac Os. Its purpose was not only providing Multi CPU support for applications, but Deep Sleep and CPU power saving features.
The power saving features, while very important, are the responsible of a lot of peripherals failures, and -in my opinion- the startup crash if a 7447 or 7448 CPU is installed .
So we may have  a temporary fix  if we can somehow disable the CPU sleep without disabling the dual CPU support ...
The "Sonnet" fix is only working on MDX systems, so I have no idea about what they did to make it work.But it is possible that Sonnet disable the CPU Plugins somehow, while its own extension take care of the double 7447 CPU and/or the Sleep task.
Title: Re: Any one want to help build a community made OS 9.3?
Post by: GaryN on March 28, 2016, 03:14:09 PM
FWIW…My MDD will now crash if I try to sleep it since I installed the Sonnet MDX.
Title: Re: Any one want to help build a community made OS 9.3?
Post by: IIO on March 28, 2016, 07:11:58 PM
Isn't funny how you miss one little w and the link doesn't work?

i thought that was intended ... as a little intelligence filter ... to protect noobs from downloading modded ROM files?
Title: Re: Any one want to help build a community made OS 9.3?
Post by: MacOS Plus on March 28, 2016, 09:00:11 PM
FWIW…My MDD will now crash if I try to sleep it since I installed the Sonnet MDX.

  Well, at least we're having a consistent experience!  Perhaps we need to try this program:

"Sleeper"
http://download.cnet.com/Sleeper/3000-2094_4-10003462.html (http://download.cnet.com/Sleeper/3000-2094_4-10003462.html)

  If anyone has experience with this software, please post.
Title: Re: Any one want to help build a community made OS 9.3?
Post by: nanopico on March 29, 2016, 06:47:16 AM
Isn't funny how you miss one little w and the link doesn't work?
http://www.gnerder.com/files/rom.sit
Thank You.
I should realize about that ...  :-[

Yeah but I also shouldn't post files as I'm falling asleep.
Title: Re: Any one want to help build a community made OS 9.3?
Post by: GaryN on March 29, 2016, 03:10:14 PM
Well, at least we're having a consistent experience!  Perhaps we need to try this program:

"Sleeper"
http://download.cnet.com/Sleeper/3000-2094_4-10003462.html (http://download.cnet.com/Sleeper/3000-2094_4-10003462.html)
If anyone has experience with this software, please post.

Cool. I'll try it and report back.
Title: Re: Any one want to help build a community made OS 9.3?
Post by: MacOS Plus on March 29, 2016, 09:08:41 PM
Well, at least we're having a consistent experience!  Perhaps we need to try this program:

"Sleeper"
http://download.cnet.com/Sleeper/3000-2094_4-10003462.html (http://download.cnet.com/Sleeper/3000-2094_4-10003462.html)
If anyone has experience with this software, please post.

Cool. I'll try it and report back.

  I'm very interested to know if this helps anything with our issue, and also if it's just a generally useful tool, mainly so I know if I should try to pursue paying for the software license after the trial expires.  The company website still exists but they don't themselves seem to directly mention this older software any longer.

  I've determined that my main Sawtooth is a usable revision for multiprocessing.  I've also determined that the Sawtooth I had in storage isn't working right and will need a lot of troubleshooting.  In addition, while digging around through my parts hoard I realized I have a Gigabit Ethernet motherboard which never had a case to call home.  If I get an adapter made up I should be able to power that one off a spare B&W power supply.

  Not that I expect either of these candidates to be any more likely to work dual in OS9 with the Giga Designs CPU I have, but the experiment would still be interesting.  I've sent off a message to Sonnet to see if anyone there still knows anything about the issue.  If I can find a reasonably-priced Sonnet Encore/ST Duet 1.8GHz I may very well buy it just so I have something extra to play with.
Title: Re: Any one want to help build a community made OS 9.3?
Post by: MacTron on March 31, 2016, 11:53:24 AM
And as promised (though a little later than mentioned)

I have tested this and have not had issues.  But having said that, I am not responsible if it does anything bad to your machine so test with caution.

I've modified it in a way that makes it generic.
It checks for a G4 and if present then checks the cpu version and modifies it if necessary.
This means it will boot on G3's and G4's that were already supported without modifying anything.

If it is not working I would appreciate the details of the machine it doesn't work on.

ROM File only
http://ww.gnerder.com/files/rom.sit

This new "automatic" :) ROM, startup an unsupported eMac 1.25, without Open Firmware CPU hack!!.  ;D (now I having troubles with the eMac 1.25 video hack ...)
But the 7448 upgraded Sawtooth, nor chime, without Open Firmware CPU hacks, I'll investigate it further.
Title: Re: Any one want to help build a community made OS 9.3?
Post by: MacTron on March 31, 2016, 11:55:50 AM
Well, at least we're having a consistent experience!  Perhaps we need to try this program:

"Sleeper"
http://download.cnet.com/Sleeper/3000-2094_4-10003462.html (http://download.cnet.com/Sleeper/3000-2094_4-10003462.html)
If anyone has experience with this software, please post.

Cool. I'll try it and report back.

I have used "Sleeper" for a long time in some Macs. It works great. But it can't put a CPU into to sleep without the official support.
Title: Re: Any one want to help build a community made OS 9.3?
Post by: nanopico on March 31, 2016, 01:44:52 PM
And as promised (though a little later than mentioned)

I have tested this and have not had issues.  But having said that, I am not responsible if it does anything bad to your machine so test with caution.

I've modified it in a way that makes it generic.
It checks for a G4 and if present then checks the cpu version and modifies it if necessary.
This means it will boot on G3's and G4's that were already supported without modifying anything.

If it is not working I would appreciate the details of the machine it doesn't work on.

ROM File only
http://ww.gnerder.com/files/rom.sit

This new "automatic" :) ROM, startup an unsupported eMac 1.25, without Open Firmware CPU hack!!.  ;D (now I having troubles with the eMac 1.25 video hack ...)
But the 7448 upgraded Sawtooth, nor chime, without Open Firmware CPU hacks, I'll investigate it further.

Well this is good to hear. So part way there.
Title: Re: Any one want to help build a community made OS 9.3?
Post by: nanopico on April 01, 2016, 06:19:29 AM
But the 7448 upgraded Sawtooth, nor chime, without Open Firmware CPU hacks, I'll investigate it further.

The list of PVR's I was working off of to detect and adjust did not include a 7448.  Can you get as far as loading open firmware? If you can, can you you check the CPU Version property of the CPU and let me know what it is?
Title: Re: Any one want to help build a community made OS 9.3?
Post by: MacTron on April 01, 2016, 08:42:52 AM
But the 7448 upgraded Sawtooth, nor chime, without Open Firmware CPU hacks, I'll investigate it further.

The list of PVR's I was working off of to detect and adjust did not include a 7448.  Can you get as far as loading open firmware? If you can, can you you check the CPU Version property of the CPU and let me know what it is?

No, I can't. The computer can't start. It don't make the startup chime.  :o

The eMac PVR is 80030101 ( PowerPC 7457A_v1.1)
Title: Re: Any one want to help build a community made OS 9.3?
Post by: nanopico on April 01, 2016, 09:32:58 AM
But the 7448 upgraded Sawtooth, nor chime, without Open Firmware CPU hacks, I'll investigate it further.

The list of PVR's I was working off of to detect and adjust did not include a 7448.  Can you get as far as loading open firmware? If you can, can you you check the CPU Version property of the CPU and let me know what it is?

No, I can't. The computer can't start. It don't make the startup chime.  :o

The eMac PVR is 80030101 ( PowerPC 7457A_v1.1)

Found it.  The 7448 is cpu version 80040101
For the rom I made I check if the version is higher than 80020102 and then set it to 80020102.
The so the ROM should work with the 7448
So if you you get no chime the ROM hasn't even loaded yet and from what I have read the nvram scripts don't run until after the chime. 

Maybe you need to pull the graphics card while it's on and plug it back in. (seriously though not recommended)
Title: Re: Any one want to help build a community made OS 9.3?
Post by: MacOS Plus on April 01, 2016, 10:02:11 AM
MacTron, you don't have any later model you could test that CPU in, do you?  If your Sawtooth won't even chime with the Sonnet installed I don't think it's likely ever going to work in that particular motherboard.  At least testing on another motherboard would help with 'proof of concept'.  This is why I'm keen on getting the spare Gigabit Ethernet motherboard I have working, plus it gives me a lot more options for video cards since it has an ADC-compliant AGP slot, which the Sawtooth doesn't.  Did you check the UNI-North revision of your board as per Sonnet's instructions?  I at least now know that my one Sawtooth has a suitable UNI-North should I choose to test on it.

Very interesting stuff with those PVR values.  It looks like we're getting much closer to eliminating the initial snag of at least getting as far as video on most machines.  It would be really nice to put all that NVRAM nonsense behind us because it will open up testing to a lot more users and therefore a wider range of hardware.  Then it's mostly just down to dealing with the specifics of certain hardware sub-components in each machine.

On a partly related note I just had a thought - for devices like internal USB bluetooth that are throwing up "no driver" messages, if there's no hope of writing a functional driver could we at least make a 'dummy' driver so the message doesn't come up every boot?

Title: Re: Any one want to help build a community made OS 9.3?
Post by: MacTron on April 01, 2016, 11:29:55 AM
MacTron, you don't have any later model you could test that CPU in, do you?  If your Sawtooth won't even chime with the Sonnet installed I don't think it's likely ever going to work in that particular motherboard.  At least testing on another motherboard would help with 'proof of concept'.  This is why I'm keen on getting the spare Gigabit Ethernet motherboard I have working, plus it gives me a lot more options for video cards since it has an ADC-compliant AGP slot, which the Sawtooth doesn't.  Did you check the UNI-North revision of your board as per Sonnet's instructions?  I at least now know that my one Sawtooth has a suitable UNI-North should I choose to test on it.

Maybe here we have a misunderstanding. I know my english is awful.
The 7448 upgraded Sawtooth was working until I tried the nano pico "automatic" ROM, previously disabling all the Open Firmware patches.
Once I'll re-patch the system, I will check the 7448 PVR.
Title: Re: Any one want to help build a community made OS 9.3?
Post by: MacTron on April 01, 2016, 12:53:09 PM
Update:
I have patched the sawtooth again, and it is working OK. I have applied only the 7457/7447/7448 enabler patch, not the NVRAM patch for enabling Mac Os 9 booting, because isn't needed with this ROM !!
... so the Sawtooth can work with any G4 CPU from now on, without worrying about OF patches (once the first one is applied) ...

I have checked the PVR and it is 80010201  :o ¿?

So once the firmware is patched, the 7447/7448 become 7445_v2.1 or 7455_v2.1, even in the OpenFirmware.
Title: Re: Any one want to help build a community made OS 9.3?
Post by: nanopico on April 01, 2016, 01:52:46 PM
Update:
I have patched the sawtooth again, and it is working OK. I have applied only the 7457/7447/7448 enabler patch, not the NVRAM patch for enabling Mac Os 9 booting, because isn't needed with this ROM !!
... so the Sawtooth can work with any G4 CPU from now on, without worrying about OF patches (once the first one is applied) ...

I have checked the PVR and it is 80010201  :o ¿?

So once the firmware is patched, the 7447/7448 become 7445_v2.1 or 7455_v2.1, even in the OpenFirmware.

Interesting.  Would you be able to provide the enabler patch you applied.  Maybe I can integrate that into things, unless it is purely a hardware type patch.
Title: Re: Any one want to help build a community made OS 9.3?
Post by: MacTron on April 01, 2016, 02:29:05 PM
The patch is applied booting with the official NewerTech "Firmware Enabler CD" .
I have posted it in other occasions, I'll try to find it.

What I don't understand is why they have to patch both  the firmware and the NVRAM...
Title: Re: Any one want to help build a community made OS 9.3?
Post by: MacTron on April 01, 2016, 04:52:48 PM
The patch is applied booting with the official NewerTech "Firmware Enabler CD" .
I have posted it in other occasions, I'll try to find it.
Here it is:
https://www.adrive.com/public/PVNy3F/NewerTech.toast.sit

Title: Re: Any one want to help build a community made OS 9.3?
Post by: nanopico on April 01, 2016, 07:39:05 PM
The patch is applied booting with the official NewerTech "Firmware Enabler CD" .
I have posted it in other occasions, I'll try to find it.

What I don't understand is why they have to patch both  the firmware and the NVRAM...

Is this patch needed for running OS X with that CPU as well?
Title: Re: Any one want to help build a community made OS 9.3?
Post by: MacOS Plus on April 01, 2016, 09:54:07 PM
Maybe here we have a misunderstanding. I know my english is awful.
The 7448 upgraded Sawtooth was working until I tried the nano pico "automatic" ROM, previously disabling all the Open Firmware patches.
Once I'll re-patch the system, I will check the 7448 PVR.

  Ah, sorry.  I didn't know you had it working before you messed with it.  That's good to know you have a fully-working platform under normal circumstances.

Update:
I have patched the sawtooth again, and it is working OK. I have applied only the 7457/7447/7448 enabler patch, not the NVRAM patch for enabling Mac Os 9 booting, because isn't needed with this ROM !!
... so the Sawtooth can work with any G4 CPU from now on, without worrying about OF patches (once the first one is applied) ...

I have checked the PVR and it is 80010201  :o ¿?

So once the firmware is patched, the 7447/7448 become 7445_v2.1 or 7455_v2.1, even in the OpenFirmware.

  Now that is incredibly interesting!  I think you've stumbled upon some really useful information.  Anything we can use to simplify the setup of the accelerated systems is priceless, especially if it helps with the "9.3" project.  The less we have to screw around with the hidden low-level workings of the hardware, the better.

  While I get the general idea, I'd really like to know exactly what modifications each upgrade CPU manufacturer's software are making to the system.  Is there any possibility of extracting the scripts or commands from these applications in order to understand fully what they are performing?  If we can use this information in some way within the ROM file or otherwise it would be fantastic because it would greatly simplify working with setting up such systems.

The patch is applied booting with the official NewerTech "Firmware Enabler CD" .
I have posted it in other occasions, I'll try to find it.

What I don't understand is why they have to patch both  the firmware and the NVRAM...

Is this patch needed for running OS X with that CPU as well?

  The install software for my Giga Designs CPU runs under OSX.  It has separate functions for enabling OSX support and for enabling OS9.x support.
Title: Re: Any one want to help build a community made OS 9.3?
Post by: MacTron on April 02, 2016, 03:11:29 AM
  The install software for my Giga Designs CPU runs under OSX.  It has separate functions for enabling OSX support and for enabling OS9.x support.

Is this patch needed for running OS X with that CPU as well?

The NewerTech Firmware Enabler CD contains a 32k NewerTech ROM (written by Terry Greeniaus) that can boot the Mac and apply the patches. If you open this ROM with an hexadecimal editor you can examine the NVRAM scripts and other stuff.

After boot, a  screen will appear and you will see the following:
Code: [Select]
-----------------------------------------------------
NewerTech 7457/7447A/7448 Enabler 3.1b5
Copyright (c) 2003-06 by Newer Technology, Inc. All rights
Reserved.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Mapping flash and mirroring in RAM . . .
Identifying flash. . .
Identified Micron B1 Bottom flash.
Validating flash images. . .
Identifying which areas of ROM need to be patched.
Identifying which patches have been installed.
Please select an option from the following menu:
1. Apply 7457/7447A/7448 enabler patch (7457/7447A/7448 CPUs will
not boot).
2. Apply PLL patch (Apple System Profiler should report correct CPU
speeds).
3. Apply L3CR extended ratios patch (L3 cache ratios above 6:1 will
work).
4. Apply thermal fan control patch (Fan will turn on only when
necessary).
5. Apply all patches
6. Set up NVRAM for booting into Mac OS 9.
7. Set up NVRAM for booting into Mac OS X.
8. Shut down.
>
Title: Re: Any one want to help build a community made OS 9.3?
Post by: nanopico on April 02, 2016, 06:39:23 AM
After boot, a  screen will appear and you will see the following:
Code: [Select]
-----------------------------------------------------
NewerTech 7457/7447A/7448 Enabler 3.1b5
Copyright (c) 2003-06 by Newer Technology, Inc. All rights
Reserved.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Mapping flash and mirroring in RAM . . .
Identifying flash. . .
Identified Micron B1 Bottom flash.
Validating flash images. . .
Identifying which areas of ROM need to be patched.
Identifying which patches have been installed.
Please select an option from the following menu:
1. Apply 7457/7447A/7448 enabler patch (7457/7447A/7448 CPUs will
not boot).
2. Apply PLL patch (Apple System Profiler should report correct CPU
speeds).
3. Apply L3CR extended ratios patch (L3 cache ratios above 6:1 will
work).
4. Apply thermal fan control patch (Fan will turn on only when
necessary).
5. Apply all patches
6. Set up NVRAM for booting into Mac OS 9.
7. Set up NVRAM for booting into Mac OS X.
8. Shut down.
>

Based on that output it I might assume you have to run this installer/patcher with the old cpu in place and after running this you put the upgrade cpu in? Is that correct or can this all be done with the new one in place?
Title: Re: Any one want to help build a community made OS 9.3?
Post by: MacTron on April 02, 2016, 07:52:59 AM
Based on that output it I might assume you have to run this installer/patcher with the old cpu in place and after running this you put the upgrade cpu in?
Yes, That's it.

Quote
Is that correct or can this all be done with the new one in place?

If you install the CPU upgrade  (7448/7447) without previously applied the 1# patch at least. The Mac don't boot at all. No startup chime, (nor Open Firmware of course)
Title: Re: Any one want to help build a community made OS 9.3?
Post by: nanopico on April 02, 2016, 07:55:17 PM
Based on that output it I might assume you have to run this installer/patcher with the old cpu in place and after running this you put the upgrade cpu in?
Yes, That's it.

Quote
Is that correct or can this all be done with the new one in place?

If you install the CPU upgrade  (7448/7447) without previously applied the 1# patch at least. The Mac don't boot at all. No startup chime, (nor Open Firmware of course)

I looked into it more and the firmware patch I believe will always be required due to it being a boot rom patch, but the nvram patch would no longer be necessary.
Title: Re: Any one want to help build a community made OS 9.3?
Post by: MacOS Plus on April 03, 2016, 09:17:17 PM
I looked into it more and the firmware patch I believe will always be required due to it being a boot rom patch, but the nvram patch would no longer be necessary.

  The important thing is that the volatile part of the equation would be removed.  I always dreaded having to swap the original CPU back into my Quicksilver if something ever went wrong with the PRAM/NVRAM coding.  First problem would have been, I don't know what the actual change was for my upgrade CPU even if I could do it manually in Open Firmware.  Second problem, I don't even know where I stashed my original QS CPU module now!  At least if I move this system to OS9 (from 10.4/10.5) I won't have to be concerned about the ramifications of resetting PRAM/NVRAM due to any other problems, or ending up with a dead PRAM battery while the system is off.
Title: Re: Any one want to help build a community made OS 9.3?
Post by: nanopico on May 23, 2016, 12:17:10 PM
In our quest to make all this happen, I've put together some data.  Not exactly anything new.  This can all be found through tech notes from Apple over the years.
Here is a page identifying as many of the G3 and G4 computers that I could find data for and what custom chips they used.  Mainly the PMU, North Bridge, South Bridge, Firewire, USB and Audio.
It may not be 100% accurate, but it should be pretty close.
This will help at least identify if the chips on a computer will be supported or not. It's a good start to figuring out what the actual differences are and what we might need to update to get these machines booting.
I've left off the video cards on these as those aren't custom chips from Apple. I may add those in at a later date.

https://github.com/elliotnunn/cdg5/wiki/Custom-IC-Chips-Used-in-G3's-and-G4's
Title: Re: Any one want to help build a community made OS 9.3?
Post by: MacTron on May 25, 2016, 09:19:26 AM
Thanks. It's a really useful and great amount of info. I have created an excel file for my self, to easy sorting this data. I have attached it, in case someone needs it in this way.

(http://macos9lives.com/smforum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=2727.0;attach=3391)
Title: Re: Any one want to help build a community made OS 9.3?
Post by: nanopico on May 26, 2016, 06:25:32 AM
I'm planing to add  some details about what level of OS 9 support is officially supported by Apple and what level we have been able to achieve through all the efforts made so far.
I'm also planing on documenting each of those chips used with as much info as I can find.
Title: Re: Any one want to help build a community made OS 9.3?
Post by: DieHard on May 26, 2016, 08:59:43 AM
I'm planing to add  some details about what level of OS 9 support is officially supported by Apple and what level we have been able to achieve through all the efforts made so far.  I'm also planing on documenting each of those chips used with as much info as I can find.

It is amazing how far all this research has gone already !
   I will be resurrecting a broken Apple PowerBook G4 1.0 17" (Al) M8793LL/A (PowerBook5,1) that came in yesterday for eWaste and finally be able to test the "Easy" Install for unsupported Macs.  Life is Good :)  Thanks for all the hard work on expanding (iMic's and others) ideas even further.
Title: Re: Any one want to help build a community made OS 9.3?
Post by: nanopico on June 15, 2016, 08:19:47 PM
BIG HUGE UPDATE!!!!!!!! (REALLY WANT TO INSERT CURSE WORDS TO DEMONSTRATE MY EXCITEMENT BUT THAT WOULD PROBABLY BE BAD SO I WILL JUST SHOUT).

Ok I got that out of my system.

Discovered a bunch of things this evening.
Trojan's success with his iMac got me thinking. (see here http://macos9lives.com/smforum/index.php/topic,1173.msg20788.html#msg20788)

The sound didn't work right once he got it booted.
And I believe this has been an issue with some PowerBooks too?
So I turned on my iBook G4.  This is the very last model they made before the switch to Intel.
I have never gotten a successful boot on this thing to the desktop it would always freeze. I never really dug into why until tonight.
So I booted it up let it freeze and dropped into macsbug.  It was stuck in and endless loop trying to load up the sound device and sound manager stuff.  Just keep looping and looping and looping. Ok you get the point.
So now I'm think okay builtin sound cards cause all sorts of interesting problems.
So into open firmware I go. Find the builtin sound node and check out the properties. There is a compatible property but it is empty.  I have learned that the compatible property plays a huge part in identifying hardware along with the device_type property.
So me being me I put screamer into the compatible property as I know that OS 9 likes the screamer chip and knows about. I have no clue if the iBook is actually compatible, but hey why not try.
Now the cool part.  Successful boot to the desktop!!!!!!!  Of course absolutely nothing works since i have no extensions what so ever.  Like literally I manual copied the ROM and the system folder and nothing else at all.
So now I will add the extensions in and see what works and what doesn't.
Now how to work around this so you don't have to go to open firmware to enter properties on devices way down in the device tree that won't be the same for each machine is next. But there we go. 

Moving on now.  I've been digging through just about ever freak'n resource in the System file.
I've found the references for the Process Manager that lists offsets for it's location. And I think what might be the resources for the heap size (but i'm only about 20% confident of that one).  Only thing is I haven't found the chunk of data that those offsets apply to yet.  So still digging.

There are so many cross-references in the various resource types that it's very hard to keep track of.

Some more details on the all in one chip intrepid!  The north bridge in it is Uni-North and the south bridge/io controller is Keylargo.  Just in case any one is wondering.

Quick summary, iBook G4 (last model ever made) boots 9.
Headway on the process manager and 1.5 GB limit made.
Small details of the intrepid chip.

Enjoy.
Title: Re: Any one want to help build a community made OS 9.3?
Post by: DieHard on June 16, 2016, 08:56:39 AM
WOW !  You just added another model to the list !

I know you are very busy, but when time permits, can you make a "Step by step" or "How to" guide for that model even if it relies on OF commands ?  we should re-post this info at https://www.thinkclassic.org/ and let iMic know :)
Title: Re: Any one want to help build a community made OS 9.3?
Post by: nanopico on June 16, 2016, 09:33:22 AM
WOW !  You just added another model to the list !

I know you are very busy, but when time permits, can you make a "Step by step" or "How to" guide for that model even if it relies on OF commands ?  we should re-post this info at https://www.thinkclassic.org/ and let iMic know :)
No problem. I have a funny feeling that any G4's that are not working will work with this fix with the exception of the mini and the xserve.  I could be completely wrong though.
There are three things.
1. You need to use the ROM that I created as that will properly handle CPU version change.  If you are booting from one of the cd's you won't have that ROM so it won't work.  You will need to manually do the cpu version adjustment.

CPU Version fix ( This has been posted other places, but I'll put it here so it's in one spot)

Code: [Select]
dev /cpus/PowerPC,G4@0

80010201 encode-int " cpu-version" property

The other fixes to get booting.
Code: [Select]
dev /pci@F2000000/mac-io/i2s/i2s-a

" screamer" encode-string " compatible" property

device-end

" /" select-dev

0 " graphic-options" get-my-property 2drop !

unselect
The last bit is to fix the graphic mirroring issues with small screen stuff since there are no drivers or hacked drivers for the 9200 in these machines. 

Then one of the following options depending on how your are booting
Hard Disk
Code: [Select]
boot hd:,\\:tbxi
CD
Code: [Select]
boot cd:,\\:tbxi

The trackpad is incredibly slow.
Sound will not work at all propably as it is not an actual screamer chip, but I am working on that and you can at least boot.

Keep in mind I have not tested many extensions so some extensions may cause issues, hangs or crashes.

I'm trying to post this on think classic, but I forgot my password there, and I haven't got my reset e-mail yet as I was going to put this up there too.

Overall this is a pretty peppy machine once it is running.
Title: Re: Any one want to help build a community made OS 9.3?
Post by: mrhappy on June 16, 2016, 11:36:37 AM
FANTASTIC work!! ;D ;D
Title: Re: Any one want to help build a community made OS 9.3?
Post by: nanopico on June 16, 2016, 12:19:29 PM
Booting from the Unsupported G4 disk will probably hang.  The ATI extensions cause a hard lock up where you can't even drop into a debugger which is triggered by a hardware interrupt.
You will have to set the iBook into target disk mode and install everything to the disk and make sure no ATI extensions (this includes the OpenGL and Quicktime ATI extensions).  Other than that so far it looks like almost all the common extensions that would come with a standard install are not causing issue.
Title: Re: Any one want to help build a community made OS 9.3?
Post by: MacOS Plus on June 16, 2016, 09:59:24 PM
WOW !  You just added another model to the list !

I know you are very busy, but when time permits, can you make a "Step by step" or "How to" guide for that model even if it relies on OF commands ?  we should re-post this info at https://www.thinkclassic.org/ and let iMic know :)
No problem. I have a funny feeling that any G4's that are not working will work with this fix with the exception of the mini and the xserve.  I could be completely wrong though.

  Well, at least there's no integrated sound device in the Xserve to contend with! ;)   (That said, I've successfully used USB audio devices with the Xserve in 10.5.)

Booting from the Unsupported G4 disk will probably hang.  The ATI extensions cause a hard lock up where you can't even drop into a debugger which is triggered by a hardware interrupt.
You will have to set the iBook into target disk mode and install everything to the disk and make sure no ATI extensions (this includes the OpenGL and Quicktime ATI extensions).  Other than that so far it looks like almost all the common extensions that would come with a standard install are not causing issue.

  When I first restored from the "Unsupported G4" disc to a FW800 MDD it booted fine the first time but then froze-up the next boot.  It turned out that at least one of the ATI extensions that applied only to much older hardware caused this freeze.  Removing it made everything work correctly.  (I believe this was when using my Radeon 9800 card.)

  Not sure if this helps your particular endeavor but it might be a contributing factor.  Also try to make sure you're testing with the final ATI drivers that are later than what is on the CD.  I'm really hoping in future that there will be a better way to have a system restore or installation detect what video hardware is actually present and only copy the needed extensions.  I've had numerous related issues over the years with particular combinations of ATI driver version versus OS version versus hardware version.  (Even worse a history of ATI bugginess in the Windows environment too.)

  Even if the 9200 ROM version in that machine isn't recognized by the ATI drivers it still might crap out on one of the older extensions.  What you mention sounds correct though - that the acceleration extensions fail because a suitable driver never loads first.  There's gotta be some sort of workaround given that there were OS 9 supported 9200-based cards, both stock and flashed.  Someone wrote on The Mac Elite site that he'd created a custom driver for some variants of them.  One way or another it should be possible to get that chip to work.  (The ATI ROM is probably flash-updatable in that machine, though I'm sure that's a risky proposition to mess with.)
Title: Re: Any one want to help build a community made OS 9.3?
Post by: nanopico on June 17, 2016, 06:12:48 AM

  When I first restored from the "Unsupported G4" disc to a FW800 MDD it booted fine the first time but then froze-up the next boot.  It turned out that at least one of the ATI extensions that applied only to much older hardware caused this freeze.  Removing it made everything work correctly.  (I believe this was when using my Radeon 9800 card.)

  Not sure if this helps your particular endeavor but it might be a contributing factor.  Also try to make sure you're testing with the final ATI drivers that are later than what is on the CD.  I'm really hoping in future that there will be a better way to have a system restore or installation detect what video hardware is actually present and only copy the needed extensions.  I've had numerous related issues over the years with particular combinations of ATI driver version versus OS version versus hardware version.  (Even worse a history of ATI bugginess in the Windows environment too.)

  Even if the 9200 ROM version in that machine isn't recognized by the ATI drivers it still might crap out on one of the older extensions.  What you mention sounds correct though - that the acceleration extensions fail because a suitable driver never loads first.  There's gotta be some sort of workaround given that there were OS 9 supported 9200-based cards, both stock and flashed.  Someone wrote on The Mac Elite site that he'd created a custom driver for some variants of them.  One way or another it should be possible to get that chip to work.  (The ATI ROM is probably flash-updatable in that machine, though I'm sure that's a risky proposition to mess with.)

After testing more last night, the ATI drivers aren't the only thing that can hang it up.
For one the Multiprocess Apple CPU stuff causes a lock up (no real surprise there).
The HID extension disables the trackpad (kind of funny actually)
Some of the open transport stuff causes a freeze.
And there is few more that I haven't yet identified that cause a freeze that are on the cd.
So I'm still working through the extensions to see what is going on.

I'm going to continue details on the iBook on this thread
http://macos9lives.com/smforum/index.php/topic,2744.0.html

Title: Re: Any one want to help build a community made OS 9.3?
Post by: MacOS Plus on June 17, 2016, 09:38:48 AM
  I think it would be very helpful if the Multiprocessing file wasn't installed in the system folder by default.  It would be better to put it somewhere else first so the user can manually move it later if they know they need it.  It seems in most cases of DP machines the stock MP file doesn't work at all anyway so it probably could be dumped entirely.  The hacked one I have that works with my Sonnet dual 1.8GHz MDX module should also be included on the disc but also not in the system folder by default.

  For the most part this practice would likely be best for the ATI drivers too since you'll get basic display without them present.  The extensions should be installed to a separate folder with instructions on which ones to manually copy to the system folder depending on the users particular ATI hardware (if scripting this to occur automatically were to be too difficult).  Like I said, there's no point in copying any of the extensions for very old built-in video chips, nor for Rage if using a Radeon card like in my case where the Rage extension's presence froze the machine on second reboot after system restore.

  I guess this sort of stuff will come with time as the project gets refined, along with the modified ROM to eliminate the OF commands on many machines being included in the SR image.  Hopefully we can get to that stage soon so a lot more users can get involved in the testing more easily.
Title: Re: Any one want to help build a community made OS 9.3?
Post by: MacTron on June 17, 2016, 10:26:29 AM
  I think it would be very helpful if the Multiprocessing file wasn't installed in the system folder by default.  It would be better to put it somewhere else first so the user can manually move it later if they know they need it.  It seems in most cases of DP machines the stock MP file doesn't work at all anyway so it probably could be dumped entirely.  The hacked one I have that works with my Sonnet dual 1.8GHz MDX module should also be included on the disc but also not in the system folder by default.

  For the most part this practice would likely be best for the ATI drivers too since you'll get basic display without them present.  The extensions should be installed to a separate folder with instructions on which ones to manually copy to the system folder depending on the users particular ATI hardware (if scripting this to occur automatically were to be too difficult).  Like I said, there's no point in copying any of the extensions for very old built-in video chips, nor for Rage if using a Radeon card like in my case where the Rage extension's presence froze the machine on second reboot after system restore.

  I guess this sort of stuff will come with time as the project gets refined, along with the modified ROM to eliminate the OF commands on many machines being included in the SR image.  Hopefully we can get to that stage soon so a lot more users can get involved in the testing more easily.

This was already done. All of the ASR images for unsupported hardware and some of the Rescue CDs that included the famous "Mactron's System Folder"  8) have the Multiprocessor folder out of the System folder.
Eventhroug I don't recomend disabling this extension unless it causes serious issues,  because it handles the CPU energy savings.
Furder more, my last edition of the Mactron's Rescue & Install CD included the iMic/nanopico's ROM as optionall install. I have to update this info on the proper thread.

About the ATI and nVIdia issues, there is no easy way to determine what file include the drivers for each card. IIRC the Radeon 8500 file enable 3D acceleration in a wide number of R2x0 cards.

Any way, for testing purposes, it is allways advisable to try to boot with a ROM, Finder and System files only.As nanopico suggested.
Title: Re: Any one want to help build a community made OS 9.3?
Post by: MacOS Plus on June 17, 2016, 11:06:08 AM
Cool.  I didn't know you had done some of that already.

  My concern about the ATI drivers being present as an 'all-or'nothing' proposition is that having all of them present by default can actually be worse (freezing) than leaving them out so the user can move them manually.  Like I said I was more than a little surprised to find my MDD freezing on the second boot because of the presence of the Rage extension which was redundant with my card.  Obviously the CD should still have them but the ASR copying all of the ATI extensions blind was an issue once I was booting from hard drive.  To be clear, I'm really only implying the implications of what the ASR does when creating a new hard drive.

  Perhaps an 'expert' in extension optimization could chime in here with respect to the extensions required for certain cards. ;)  I'm wondering if we could start another thread and get feedback from the members on how they've optimized their own ATI configurations so we might put some kind of chart together.  I've never found one good central place of reference for that information.

  I look forward to reading the update about your CD image! :D
Title: Re: Any one want to help build a community made OS 9.3?
Post by: nanopico on June 17, 2016, 01:58:50 PM
Learned something new in my journey today.
I think it was asked how to delete a node from the device tree in open firmware.
I had provided some instruction somewhere on how to sort of disable and it would work for most things, but depending on how the interrupts are set up in hardware I found it can not work well.

If you can delete the node then it clears out those dependent interrupts so things are happy.

so with out further delay's here's how you can delete a node (and it deletes all the children below it as well)

I am not responsible for what you choose to do with this information.

So let's say we want to delete the mac-io node (fyi this will pretty much make your machine do pretty much nothing after this until you restart) located at /pci@f2000000/mac-io

Code: [Select]
" /pci@f2000000/mac-io" find-package drop delete-node

then just change the path to the node you want in the first part.  The space between the first " and the / is important.
Title: Re: Any one want to help build a community made OS 9.3?
Post by: MacOS Plus on June 17, 2016, 02:25:36 PM
Does this finally mean less typing?
Title: Re: Any one want to help build a community made OS 9.3?
Post by: MacTron on June 17, 2016, 02:42:20 PM
Obviously the CD should still have them but the ASR copying all of the ATI extensions blind was an issue once I was booting from hard drive.  To be clear, I'm really only implying the implications of what the ASR does when creating a new hard drive.

Although The ASR method have some benefits, it isn't all time suitable. I don't even use it.

Quote
  Perhaps an 'expert' in extension optimization could chime in here with respect to the extensions required for certain cards. ;)  I'm wondering if we could start another thread and get feedback from the members on how they've optimized their own ATI configurations so we might put some kind of chart together.  I've never found one good central place of reference for that information.
I'll make a new thread to try to collect  info about this, I'll start with what I know about .
Quote
  I look forward to reading the update about your CD image! :D
Here you have :
http://macos9lives.com/smforum/index.php?topic=3177.msg20361#msg20361
Title: Re: Any one want to help build a community made OS 9.3?
Post by: nanopico on June 17, 2016, 03:51:38 PM
Does this finally mean less typing?

Yes now that i figured that out.
Title: Re: Any one want to help build a community made OS 9.3?
Post by: nanopico on June 18, 2016, 05:23:21 AM
Not that we don't still have some issues with machines once they are booted, but I do believe the only one we haven't gotten to a desktop yet is the Mac Mini. (correct me if I'm wrong here).
I have one on order will be here sometime this week.
So hopefully I can crack that one too.
Title: Re: Any one want to help build a community made OS 9.3?
Post by: nanopico on June 19, 2016, 11:58:51 AM
So after a fairly productive weekend getting somethings working, I've got an update list of items I'm targeting.
The goals for OS 9.3 (at least that's what I'm calling it) are the following.

Might not be a long list of features, but we don't have a huge amount of resources and I think those these would get us pretty far.

After that I might tackle updated graphics drivers. 
Title: Re: Any one want to help build a community made OS 9.3?
Post by: Texas_RangerAT on July 14, 2016, 03:48:50 PM
All I can say is you've all been doing some incredible work! If there's any way I can help you I gladly will!

The non-supported machines I have access to are:
- iBook G4 1 GHz (Powerbook 6,5)
- two MDD FW800 Dual 1,25 GHz (although one seems to have a broken SuperDrive)
- a Gigabit Ethernet with a Sonnet 1.8 GHz upgrade (it isn't mine so I'd have to look up the exact details), I think it's currently running 10.4 only (installed on a Quicksilver, transplanted to the Gigabit Ethernet by simply swapping the hard drives, the QS is now happily running the 9.2.2 with any Sonnet mods)

All my other machines are either Intel or officially supported (QS, MDD 1,25 GHz 2003 FW 400, B&W G3, beige G3 etc.). BTW, one of the MDD FW800s has 2 GB of RAM if that helps in any way (i.e. testing any solutions for the 2 GB issue).


Regarding an older post on the availability of 68k hardware:

Quote
a quick search on ebay germany gives you 220 results for "mac pro", 15,000 results for "apple g4", and 0 for "apple 68k".

Well that's obviously because sellers don't call them 68k. A quick search for specific models unearthed a Classic, an LC, an LCIII and a bunch of other stuff, all next to free except the - supposedly - professionally serviced Classic. The eBay classified ads offer even more, although sometimes for ridiculous prices (250 Euros for a Performa 630? Are you kidding?).
Title: Re: Any one want to help build a community made OS 9.3?
Post by: LillyOmegaWolf on March 06, 2017, 04:16:34 PM
I think this is awesome!
I'm happy to test anything. It would be great to see OS9 become more than what it is as I think its a great old OS. I got a few G4s and one G3 iBook clamshell all of which I'm happy to play around with as my work system is OSX Sierra (for FCPX).
Title: Re: Any one want to help build a community made OS 9.3?
Post by: devils_advisor on March 15, 2017, 03:59:06 PM



quote author=nanopico link=topic=2727.msg20905#msg20905 date=1466362731]
So after a fairly productive weekend getting somethings working, i've got an update list of items I'm targeting.
The goals for OS 9.3 (at least that's what I'm calling it) are the following.

Might not be a long list of features, but we don't have a huge amount of resources and I think those these would get us pretty far.


After that I might tackle updated graphics drivers.
[/quote]




I saw somewhere that the os7 sources where either leaked or released.  Would it be a good source to study that or is it to old to be useful?
Just thought the core is almost the same except addons over time.
Title: Re: Any one want to help build a community made OS 9.3?
Post by: nanopico on March 15, 2017, 05:21:52 PM



quote author=nanopico link=topic=2727.msg20905#msg20905 date=1466362731]
So after a fairly productive weekend getting somethings working, i've got an update list of items I'm targeting.
The goals for OS 9.3 (at least that's what I'm calling it) are the following.
  • Remove the 1.5 GB RAM limit
  • Create drivers/get hardware working on machines we have now got booting.

Might not be a long list of features, but we don't have a huge amount of resources and I think those these would get us pretty far.


After that I might tackle updated graphics drivers.




I saw somewhere that the os7 sources where either leaked or released.  Would it be a good source to study that or is it to old to be useful?
Just thought the core is almost the same except addons over time.
[/quote]

In theory it would be good as a lot has not changed.  It also might have change history in it so a person could see the changes made over time and the logic so that a person could also infer how it progressed to today.  But that's assuming "one has looked at it". 
I would say that would be not right as the source is proprietary, and what not, but then again? 
Reality I have seen it.  It is very interesting indeed.  It has confirmed some of my suspicions and raised more questions. But it is a very interesting.

Title: Re: Any one want to help build a community made OS 9.3?
Post by: ck on April 25, 2017, 06:11:10 PM
@Nanopico and OS 9.3 team:

THANK YOU for inspiring the rest of the Mac Classic holdouts to keep re-inventing the old into new, or should I say newer  :)

I may have next to zero-programming skills, but I enjoy everything mac-related from 7 to 9. I've set up an off-shore call center using Mac laptops running 7.x to X just eleven years ago and even now I'm very happily emulating 8.1 on both my chromebook and smartphone.. heck, I'm even skinning all my classic OSes in Sierra-themed icons and windows, lol! :D

All of your efforts are COMPLETELY appreciated by Mac lovers the world over so please include me in the long list of fans!!!

Finally, just a mini-interjection that may hopefully be of some use in your AWESOME endeavors:

While not endorsing to do so exclusively, reverse-engineering a few critical select pieces of the unsupported hardware puzzle, which looks like is the heart of this project, may very well be used constructively to learn more about what can be made to work. So, say some rogue hacking gets the job done in a quick-and-dirty way, having these working elements can shed some new light on what (and where) to tinker with. Then the real work of re-achieving successful exploits really begins, at the very least with the revealed knowledge that it is definitely doable because it's already been done in a rogue fashion.

Ps. and if anyone wants to go Sierra on their old systems, purely for kicks of course, let me know and I can send over a cool little 'unfinished' gui package! -afro-

Pss. if it helps, I do have a 17" Powerbook G4 that I believe doesn't boot natively into OS 9 to test future compatibility-enhanced OS 9 builds and rom/boot tools.
Title: Re: Any one want to help build a community made OS 9.3?
Post by: Daniel on May 16, 2017, 06:38:32 AM
Hi Everyone,

You can probably already tell this because of my custom ROM file hacking, but I'm in! :)
I officially want to help develop 9.3! I am currently only good at forth and open firmware, but I can learn quickly and I have too much time on my hands. I will mostly only be able to ask interesting questions about non Open Firmware stuff, but I am willing to try out any crazy experimental software you make  :)

Title: Re: Any one want to help build a community made OS 9.3?
Post by: nanopico on May 17, 2017, 06:24:30 AM
Hi Everyone,

You can probably already tell this because of my custom ROM file hacking, but I'm in! :)
I officially want to help develop 9.3! I am currently only good at forth and open firmware, but I can learn quickly and I have too much time on my hands. I will mostly only be able to ask interesting questions about non Open Firmware stuff, but I am willing to try out any crazy experimental software you make  :)

You will be useful with that knowledge.  It's something we need some help with. I have worked a lot to learn it and have a pretty good knowledge of it now, but it seems you have some additional useful knowledge to add.
Title: Try the iBook Early 2003 OS9General
Post by: purakee on July 06, 2017, 07:59:58 AM
I bought an iBook G4 A1133 1.33 GHz (PowerBook6,7) and an iBook G3 800 Mhz A1005 last gen. (Early 2003, PowerBook4,3) a while ago. Now, when I looked at the compatible property for /pci@f2000000/mac-io/i2s/i2s-a on the iBook G3, the value was "i2sbus," which is the same as the iBook G4. This property seems to hang many of the iBook G4s and Aluminum PowerBook G4s without the "fix" that Nanopico posted; however, those G4s don't have sound on Mac OS 9. The iBook G3 Early 2003 has a custom CD for installation, and therefore, a custom Mac OS 9 system, and the Sound Manager recognizes the "i2sbus" without a problem on the G3 system.

So my main point is that if we restore the OS9General.dmg file from the iBook G3 Early 2003 disc to the hard drive on the semi-functioning iBooks and PowerBooks, along with the custom ROM, we could make sound work on those systems! Unless there is another impediment in the properties of the sound device on the G4s, this should work. I have attempted this on the iBook G4 with the custom ROM, but the hard drive became corrupt, so I cannot even boot into Mac OS 9. I do not have access to my PowerBook G4 right now, but when I do I will try this on it.

Could anybody with a G4 that requires Nanopico's sound card hack try this hack as well?


Thank you so much, and I am so grateful for the progress we've made since 2015!
Title: Re: Try the iBook Early 2003 OS9General
Post by: nanopico on July 07, 2017, 06:26:50 AM
I bought an iBook G4 A1133 1.33 GHz (PowerBook6,7) and an iBook G3 800 Mhz A1005 last gen. (Early 2003, PowerBook4,3) a while ago. Now, when I looked at the compatible property for /pci@f2000000/mac-io/i2s/i2s-a on the iBook G3, the value was "i2sbus," which is the same as the iBook G4. This property seems to hang many of the iBook G4s and Aluminum PowerBook G4s without the "fix" that Nanopico posted; however, those G4s don't have sound on Mac OS 9. The iBook G3 Early 2003 has a custom CD for installation, and therefore, a custom Mac OS 9 system, and the Sound Manager recognizes the "i2sbus" without a problem on the G3 system.

So my main point is that if we restore the OS9General.dmg file from the iBook G3 Early 2003 disc to the hard drive on the semi-functioning iBooks and PowerBooks, along with the custom ROM, we could make sound work on those systems! Unless there is another impediment in the properties of the sound device on the G4s, this should work. I have attempted this on the iBook G4 with the custom ROM, but the hard drive became corrupt, so I cannot even boot into Mac OS 9. I do not have access to my PowerBook G4 right now, but when I do I will try this on it.

Could anybody with a G4 that requires Nanopico's sound card hack try this hack as well?

Thank you so much, and I am so grateful for the progress we've made since 2015!

I have both those iBooks as well.  The i2sbus compatibility doesn't seem to make much of a difference.  That is a generic identifier for things with early boot. As the machine boots, it does some other checks to determine the exact device.  i2s is just the communication protocol.  Not the actual communication instructions on how and what to do. The G4 iMac have i2sbus as well.  When the sound manager starts up it is seeing it as a generic sound device when it isn't so the initialization sits in an infinite loop.  Your theory may work and it's worth a try, but the base install of my G4 when I tested it was done from the G3's restore disc (which would contain the needed info) and the custom ROM.
It is really worth a try. I can try it, but I'll be honest and say that it won't really happen for several months. I get too busy with other things at the moment.
Title: Re: Any one want to help build a community made OS 9.3?
Post by: purakee on July 22, 2017, 06:21:47 AM
Turns out my theory is wrong, the iBook G4 halts at open transport and bombs again. The same with extensions off.
Title: Re: Any one want to help build a community made OS 9.3?
Post by: DieHard on July 22, 2017, 08:55:27 AM
Just as an FYI (for those new to unsupported notebooks), the "Gold Standard" is missing from Mactron's spreadsheet...
Apple PowerBook G4 1.0 17" (Al) Specs
Identifiers: 17-Inch - M8793LL/A - PowerBook5,1 - A1013


This unit is still available on ebay very inexpensively and has very compatible Mac OS 9 hardware... I will add more testing details when I get the time.

If you already own an iBook, please press on :)

I just included this info. if a user was thinking of getting a great Mac OS 9 notebook
Title: Re: Any one want to help build a community made OS 9.3?
Post by: LillyOmegaWolf on January 08, 2018, 06:55:01 PM
the Apple PowerBook G4 1.0 17" works fully?
Thats awesome. I've been wanting a 17" powerbook but been holding off because none would run OS9 and I already have 17" macbook pros to run OSX. What installer would I use? (I'm assuming it uses a custom one?)
its the only model that will run OS9? Not the likes of the newer 1.5 or 1.67 models?

Edit - Sorry about going off topic here, the prospect of OS9 on a 17" powermac is exciting to me. I just don't know how to remove my post now that its been maid.
Title: Re: Any one want to help build a community made OS 9.3?
Post by: macStuff on January 09, 2018, 05:43:23 AM
Thanks. It's a really useful and great amount of info. I have created an excel file for my self, to easy sorting this data. I have attached it, in case someone needs it in this way.

thanks for this great reference; and for including the xls file.. very handy indeed
you made this with microsoft office for mac os 9?

*ahhh* i just love the way that text looks on mac os 9
i remember back in the early 2000s a great deal of effort was put forth by
designers to get this great crisp text to look properly inside flash player
and alot of the websites back then were designed with the same look + feel of the text

i used to use fontographer back then to design my own typefaces...
i was a typeface addict, back in 1997 time period, i spent many nights downloading
fonts from hotline servers

i should try to dig up my old backup cds + find an os9 copy of macromedia fontographer
Title: Re: Any one want to help build a community made OS 9.3?
Post by: Astroman on January 09, 2018, 06:33:31 AM
the Apple PowerBook G4 1.0 17" works fully?
...
Edit - Sorry about going off topic here, the prospect of OS9 on a 17" powermac is exciting to me. I just don't know how to remove my post now that its been maid.
sorry to disappoint you (I have the 15", 1ghz)... it does indeed boot into OS9 and is usable, but seriously crippled. No graphic acceleration, the left side ports are dead, no Airport, Ethernet looses autoconfig (needs manual/fixed setting of your LAN port), USB on the right side is 1.1 and very slow, FW may or may not work (depends on previous setup or stuff connected during boot)
It's no comparison to the machine's performance in OSX 10.4 classic mode. /ot
Title: Re: Any one want to help build a community made OS 9.3?
Post by: torvan on April 02, 2018, 02:44:00 PM
I am sorry, I did not get any message and of course have been offline because I am trying to restrict my Net usage.

When  was in the MBU, I was not a programmer--I was a learning specialist (or trainer if you will ) in the technical support division. The limits of what we did "officially" would be to remove the product entirely.

So I have no real knowledge to be able to contribute. I should have made that more clear, and I apologize.
Title: Re: Any one want to help build a community made OS 9.3?
Post by: macdude888 on September 15, 2018, 10:22:19 AM
Greetings, friends. Is anyone still interested in this project? Has anything come about as a result of these efforts? I myself am not experienced with advanced coding; however, i'm certainly willing to dedicate my time to test on my machines and providing user feedback. i'm trying to improve my skills so that i can write new programs and improve upon existing ones to keep OS9 alive doing more and more.
Title: Re: Any one want to help build a community made OS 9.3?
Post by: ELN on September 15, 2018, 03:33:06 PM
You bet. We have all sorts of cool stuff. I built ROMs that can boot the Mac mini and (slightly) raise the RAM ceiling, with more to come.

github.com/elliotnunn/cdg5 (http://github.com/elliotnunn/cdg5)
Title: Re: Any one want to help build a community made OS 9.3?
Post by: nsputnik on July 08, 2019, 08:53:52 AM
Hi guys.

How it the project going?  Is there anything I can try to run yet that is all in one package?