Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
A stupid question, did you press the PMU reset button on the FW400 after swapping the CPU? It's a mini-button on the forward edge of the board, near the ATA-66 connector.
I put the processor back to 1.42GHz but it still doesn't work in the FW400 tower.

So I can confirm in my case the 1.42GHz DP (FW800) processor card doesn't work in a 1.0GHz DP (FW400) MDD.

I've returned the 1.42GHz and the 1.0GHz cards back to the original machines they came from and they work fine.
Not sure how insane doing it would be, but if it was me, I believe optional protected memory and pre-emptive multitasking extensions (if an extension approach would be even possible for those) would be two features that would be particularly cool to get going on a new update. Basically, any Pink idea would be cool. And, of course, as others mentioned, pushing the RAM limit up. :)

I also wonder if there could be potential for some sort of terminal app?

But of course, I personally find getting more machines to boot our current OS 9.2.2 more interesting than adding such new features first. But afterwards... then hell yeah, that'd be awesome.
Mac OS 9 on Unsupported Hardware / Re: Booting Mac Os 9 on Mac Mini.
« Last post by Jubadub on March 23, 2018, 08:37:36 PM »
2. Remove the "Multiprocessing" folder from the System folder.  I did this as a precaution, perhaps not a necessity, but obviously you're not going to need it on this machine.  There's no sense chasing ghosts if you have a problem because of it.
(Bold emphasis mine.)

Actually, according to an Apple Note I read, it seems this may be not as obvious as one would normally (and understandably) speculate:
Basically, according to this, even a single core single processor Mac is better off with it left intact. Interesting.

But hey, you guys mentioned waking from sleep problems, right? I know you all came to very good leads as to why that is happening, but could it be the last bit of that link I put also be related to it? I highlighted it in bold below:

"The files in this folder do not occupy any significant RAM or hard disk space, so you will not benefit by removing it. Although your Macintosh may have a single processor, we strongly discourage removing the Multiprocessing folder. Applications which are multiprocessor-aware rely on the software in this folder and may crash if it is not present. Also, some recent Macintosh models may not wake from sleep if this folder is removed."
Mac OS 9 on Unsupported Hardware / Re: OS9x86
« Last post by Jubadub on March 23, 2018, 08:30:02 PM »
there was a port of System 7 to x86.  It was an joint effort I believe with IBM.
Wow. This just blew my mind. I had heard of the project, but never knew they ever had compiled it!!

I just felt the same kinda shock as the 2005 one. ;D

Honestly, though, I'd be more interested in porting OS 9 over to the Talos II than anything Intel or AMD, modern (with their "glorious" IME and PSP) or old. Regardless of how possible or unviable the task would be, porting OS 9 to x86, to me, sound as interesting as "how to replace my eyes with two Nintendo 3DS cameras" or anything else similarly random. Possible? Maybe. A good idea? I don't think so.
Mac OS 9 on Unsupported Hardware / Re: Booting Mac Os 9 on Mac Mini.
« Last post by Jubadub on March 23, 2018, 08:07:16 PM »
I just wanted to take a second to chime in and say how you guys (all of you) are amazing for reaching this far, and committing to this so competently and consistently. Admirable.

Sorry I couldn't join the testers: I'm still waiting for the Firewire 400 card I ordered in January for my G3 Wallstreet (shipping anything overseas sucks in Brazil). Nonetheless, if anything isn't yet 100% functional by the time it arrives, it'd be an honor to join the cause. We will see...

Anyway, things are looking good for 7447a! At work, I eagerly lurk on this thread whenever I get the chance... :)
Mac OS 9 on Unsupported Hardware / Re: OS9x86
« Last post by dr bu on March 23, 2018, 04:14:36 PM »
dr bu for sure enjoy die hard/somebody! speak about him/herself in 3rd person :)
Mac OS 9 on Unsupported Hardware / Re: OS9x86
« Last post by Naiw on March 23, 2018, 03:07:08 PM »
there was a port of System 7 to x86.  It was an joint effort I believe with IBM.
All it could do was boot.  No software ran on it.
To make existing stuff work on it you would be writing a PPC emulator much like there is a 68k emulator currently.
So now you would have a 68k emulator on top of a PPC emulator on top of x86.
Since there is just enough in there to boot a very specific system, I am going to assume that
A. That actual system is not available anywhere
B. There is no emulator for either 68k or PPC
C. From a code point of view at the low levels involved, there is a very significant change between System 7 and OS 9.  You really would be just starting over. I don't think there is anything in there to use.

Still I would never say anything is impossible, but I'm not sure who would have the time and desire to actually accomplish this.

Where from do you pull this information?

First of all we all know Mac OS 7 been running on at least 2 processors outside of 68k, PowerPC and AT&T Hobbit. This suggests that the 68k interpreter that was originally used was written in a high level language and was easily ported, if that's the case why would it been any more difficult get this going on x86?

We also know that classic Mac OS (and to not make any one confused here, classic Mac OS is the ROM) was written in 68k assembler for the most part, there was no way around that without compromising backwards compatibility.

We also know that System 7 does not implicitly mean PowerPC compatibility, System 7.0 had no ability to run PowerPC applications at all, infact I believe System 7.1.2 was the first to even have any PowerPC support. And even if it had if PowerPC compatibility was required for a particular platform that would not mean you would have the entire system on top of a PPC emulator that hosts a 68k emulator... Since the classic Mac OS to all it's knowledge runs on 68k it never had any knowledge the PowerPC at all, PowerPC emulation could be accomplished with a fairly simple user mode emulator- but I would argue it's unlikely this particular image would have any PowerPC compatibility.

And finally- if we overlook the fact that you claim this boots System 7.1 but didn't run any software (which by itself means there must be quite a bit of 68k emulation going on),
Kanjitalk was a system to be able to express multibyte characters within Mac OS- so I would reckon that unless this just isn't a mismarker and it's supposed to say 68k or PPC instead of x86, I would imagine it indeed runs software else it would be kind of pointless wouldn't it?

Here's the best explination.

The 68k was all ported.  It was all running x86 code.  This is why no applications ran.
The 68k emulator was never ported.

The 68k emulator runs on top of the PPC system.  A lot of the system is running PPC code.  The emulator is for backwards compatability and the remaining pieces of the OS in 68k.
Eln can elaborate more on that.  Thing is backwards compatability was compromised and not all 68k applications would run.

The thing is, the emulator wouldn't have to run ontop of a PPC emulator in the end, but you would need both a PPC emulator and 68k emulator.  An x86 kernel would have to marshal between them and between x86 code.

If it's as trivial and easy as you imply, then by all means give it a go.

Project Star Trek was never commercialized, even if this wasnít a mislabeled 68k iso (which it is, I checked) there is no way it would been the base of such system.

Iím very well aware of how the 68k emulator fits into the system and Iím saying once again the 68k emulator is what runs the entire system- itís true itís there for compatibility reason; and the major reason is there wouldnít have been a Mac OS for PowerPC without it, The entire system runs on top of it.

If you donít need supervisor compatibility the emulation is a lot more trivial and often way way faster too.

If you hand me Mac OS 7 for x86; I can sure make a PoC.



I obviously missed your last comment about marshalling, no it doesn't have to marshall between anything.
This is exactly what Rosetta did on Mac OS X and also the reason it didn't support kexts- the (PowerPC) emulation was performed entirely in userspace.
In addition to that "the 68k emulator was never ported", Mac OS did NOT have a 68k emulator before Gary Davidians nanokernel, he made both of them to get Mac OS running on PowerPC (well originally Motorola 88000, Not AT&T Hobbit as I wrote in the previous post- unfortunately mixed it with BeOS), This was done in parallel with Project Star Trek.

But besides that Mac OS doesn't have a kernel- unless we're talking PowerPC systems that has the nanokernel (which as I repeatedly said is more of a "hypervisor"; especially the first version than anything else)
General Hardware Discussions / Re: US to UK shipping rates / paths
« Last post by reader50 on March 23, 2018, 01:19:03 PM »
Check rates for FedEx and DHL also.

Sounds like you're seeing airmail rates. Someone should offer ground rates on the slow boat.
General Hardware Discussions / US/UK/Euro shipping rates/pathways
« Last post by Fury deBongo on March 23, 2018, 09:48:16 AM »
And now (perhaps quite possibly somehow related to Brexit)Ö
again considering another (smaller but slightly heavier) package
to the UK. Has it now become time to consider a UK airlift path?
(Much like the old Berlin airlift effort?)

Seems that perhaps shipping to a neighboring country and then
a small holiday trip TO that country FROM the UK for that parcel
pickupÖ could garner reduced shipping cost?

Or... diplomatic pouches?

Judging from all the responses to the previous postÖ
everyoneís on the very edge of their seats over this.

Q: Whatever happened to Fury?

A: Ahh, he went into the Apple/Mac smuggling *biz.

                                          Aaaaargh, me mateys!

*Highly lucrative? Not.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10