Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
Mac OS 9 Booting on Previously Unsupported Hardware / Re: Apple DVD Player
« Last post by IIO on Today at 06:53:59 PM »
Sadly, so far iTunes 2.0.4 does not work - can't even listen to a simple radio station - has to be a way to re-bind and or re-connect to the servers. Quicktime works, no channels, but works.

you are killing me, really.

did you notice? using smoke signs also stopped working a while ago.
during the last 20 years i have tried some 350 controlpanels and i also have a bunch of audio apps installed.

the only incompatibilty i have ever found is between kaleidoscope and max/msp´s fullscreen mode. K2 somehow seems to steal the panel window mode from this app and then the whole window wont draw.:(
Figured I'd put an end-note on this topic.  Since Timbuktu is a 32-bit product, it doesn't run in Catalina.  So unless someone has access to the source code, macOS Mojave 10.14 appears to be the end of the line for this product I've been using since 1991.

RIP Timbuktu; 1987-2019.  It was a good 32 years.
Here's a question: would it make sense for us to create some Extensions Manager or Conflict Catcher config files we can share, for different DAW setups?  That way, it becomes really easy to load up someone else's list and see how it plays, and then restore our own after the fact.

I prefer Conflict Catcher because it lets me disable items in the Apple menu and third party tools' plugin folders as well, and save it all as a startup set.  So if I'm switching DAW setups, I just load the startup set I know works well for the one I'm running.
Apple has run fast and loose with the term "classic".  Here's a few of the uses:
  • 1990: Apple introduces the Macintosh Classic running System 6.0.7 (but still sells the Macintosh Plus)
  • 1991: Apple introduces the Macintosh Classic II running either 6.0.8L or 7.0.1
  • 1993: Apple introduces the Macintosh Colo(u)r Classic running System 7.1
  • 1993: Apple introduces the Macintosh Colo(u)r Classic II running System 7.1
  • 2000: Apple introduces Mac OS X Public Beta, which includes the Rhapsody Blue Box, renamed "Mac OS X Classic Environment"
  • 2007: Apple introduces the iPod Classic

Pedants will find all sorts of things wrong with this list, because it isn't completely correct in all literature from Apple and others.

Then... on top of this, we've got Apple and others referring to the original MC68000 Macs as "Classic Macs" which includes the 128k, the 512k, the 512ke, and the Plus.  Then we've got the division of 68k and PPC Macs, "Old World" vs. "New World" Macs, "Pre-G3", "GX" etc. Macs, etc.

On I list all pre-OS X Mac OS versions as "Classic Mac OS" even though the terms "Classic" and "Mac OS" don't really apply to all of them, separately or together.  That's because all the other terms fit even worse than "Classic" does.

Think about it:

Only Mac OS 9 will run in the "Classic Environment" -- except Mac OS 8.6 runs in the "Blue Box" which is essentially the same thing as the "Classic Environment".  The only "Classic Mac OS" versions that will run on a Macintosh Classic are System 6.0.7 through Mac OS 7.5.5.  Of those, only three OS versions are called "Mac OS".  Another two Mac OS versions (7.6 and 7.6.1) will run on a Mac with "Classic" in the name.

So the "Classic Environment" won't run a "Classic Mac OS" that will run on a Classic Mac.

So.  What I find still works to differentiate is 68K vs PPC vs Intel vs Intel64 vs ARM.  Apple will soon muddy this further, with macOS 11 being IA64/ARM, and version numbers overlapping with iOS/iPadOS/watchOS/tvOS.  I'm sure we'll soon have a Classic Watch or something as well.

So until someone comes up with something that actually works in all situations, I'll continue to not use the word "Classic" by itself when referring to anything; "Classic Environment" will refer to the OS X compatibility layer for Mac OS 9, "Classic Macintosh will refer to any Macintosh that can run Mac OS 9 or earlier (including the Mac Mini G4 now), "Macintosh Classic" will refer to the particular computer, and "Classic Mac OS" will refer to any Mac OS prior to Mac OS X that isn't A/UX, BSD or Linux.

Unless we want to switch to calling the older Mac OS "Toolbox Mac OS" which would be more descriptive; Mac OS X could then be NextStep-Based Mac OS, and macOS11+ could be... who knows what.
It's the base value you see in a Get Info window.

exactly, it is techically the same thing as the "get info" sizes of APPLs.

I'd recommend this for any machine that has more than 256MB RAM, honestly.

or if you plan to unstuff or rename 5000 files in a folder procedurally while the window is open.
- The "SIZE" increases the memory partition to the finder and greatly improves stability.
MacTron, could you explain this a little bit more in detail? What does this one do exactly? What are the size values that we can see here? What are the original values? Which machine do you recommend it for?  (Shall I try it at my 9600/G4800 as well for example?)

Since there's been no response, I'll add a bit of detail.

Adjusting the SIZE resource adjusts the default memory allocated to the application (in this case, the Finder).  It's the base value you see in a Get Info window.

Increasing this value means that if you have any additions to the Finder that take up more memory, you won't run into out of memory errors.  This can get complicated, as System Extensions sometimes modify Finder resources, and some of that gets stored in the System stack, some in the Finder stack.

I'd recommend this for any machine that has more than 256MB RAM, honestly.
it is ATA 100 and i see no reason why it wouldnt boot from there when you exchange the optical for a SSD.
First G5s has (P)ATA-interfaces for optical drives. Has anybody try to boot to OSX (or OS 9) with HD from there?

I do believe all the G5 PowerMacs had PATA for the optical drive.  That was why I had used a custom CD I made to do my tests on my G5 a few years back.
General Hardware Discussions / Re: Onboard DAC quality
« Last post by GaryN on July 09, 2020, 02:04:54 PM »
That's BS!

Care to elaborate in what sense are they of "far far better quality"?

For once I totally agree with llO… no, seriously, we're in total agreement here.

It's audio my friend. It's perception. Just because item "A" meets a particular specification doesn't mean it sounds as good or better than item "B" that has the same specifications. Almost ALL of the years-long fuss over analog vs. digital audio was over the accuracy and sound quality of the ADAs used…… Hell, it still is.

I had a G3 Desktop with the same chip. I used it to play music occasionally from the CD drive thru a typical little pair of computer speakers. I also DID have that output routed thru my patch bay so I could easily pass it to my console and main system. It in NO way whatsoever sounded anything like my Delta 44 ADA I had at the time - nor did i expect it to. It was certainly never intended to be a high-quality / pro chip.

It's no different than being able to hear the difference between say, two 100-watt amplifiers with virtually identical specs. On paper, they should sound alike… but they don't. Sound is an intangible, subjective thing. Person A is perfectly happy with 128k Mp3 quality, person B won't tolerate anything less than 16/44 PCM and person C won't be happy until the newest 384 kHz $5000 ADA shows up at his door. My wife actually still has and listens to an ancient RCA 45RPM record player. She loves her old scratched up 45s. They send chills down my spine.

I DO know there is certainly a difference between the sound of Syntho's PT interface and the 9600 built-in.
That is the simple reason I said "Since I/we don't know at all what you play or what kind of gear you play it through, the logical approach is clearly for you to take a 1/8"-to-whatever cord and find out for yourself if it works for you."
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10