... in terms of App compatibility think how snow leopard is comparable to Windows XP in those terms I am curious is it closer to Puma or Panther?? googles AI is useless when I ask it that question so I might as well ask real humans unless your a bunch of bots

...and I see the original thread had been renamed, so there are two of them now. *chuckle*

Everything you said makes a ton of sense but nowadays with the hacked Mac OS 9 release, unless you need expandability/certain peripherals I don't see a great advantage of a tower 1.25 GHz G4 over a Mac mini 1.25 GHz G4. It's approximately the same speed, even quieter, uses much less energy, and takes up much less space.

Well... yes... and no. Unfortunately, it is slightly more difficult to jam (2) Powercore Cards, (1) UAD1 Mackie Card and (1) 2496 into the G4 mini; this was my favorite setup for many years in the MDD. 

I do, however, enjoy pulling up old projects on the mini for export, but most of the time I use a VM. At any rate, the mini is still an amazing machine for me to run OS9 and peruse all the legacy stuff that I used to create the site

Thanks, @ssokolow. I was wondering if anyone was ever going to create a new (yet related topic) as it is often the case around here, seldom is this ever done. Now, we’ve a new topic for such “other” non-Mini System 7 things.

It is far easier for individuals to do this upfront, rather than to do this… afterwards.

Cheers!

I wasn't able to find a thread for System 7 on unsupported non-Mini hardware, and I learned that it was possible with the CHRP-derived ROM and Enabler via this thread, so I hope this is the right place to share test results for getting something earlier than 9.2.2 running natively on a G4 Quicksilver 2002.

I've started to test out Mac.OS.ROM_10.2.1_patched.bin and System.Enabler.356_patched_71x.bin (because I wanted to see the patched boot screen) on my Power Mac G4 Quicksilver 2002 (1x933MHz, 1.5G RAM) with Mac OS 7.6.1 and I've found the following Control Panels and Extensions that need to be disabled for it to boot and run without crashing.

• If I don't disable the WindowShade extension, clicking inside a Finder window will trigger a broken bomb dialog that sometimes doesn't even get to draw its contents.
• If I don't disable the File Sharing Extension, the system will bomb during the boot process with "Sorry, a system error occurred. \n "File Sharing Extension" \n Illegal instruction".
• If I don't disable the Date & Time control panel, you'll get "Sorry, a system error occurred. \n "Finder" \n error type 10." (I was too lazy to confirm, but I suspect this is a Y2K20 bug.)

(After catching those, I found QuickDraw GX complaining that I should have installed the PowerPC version instead of the 68k version and I popped in the 7.6.1 CD to reinstall that.)

I'll have to see how many of those go away if I prepare the system with SheepShaver instead of Basilisk II. (Something I assumed wouldn't matter since I used the "for any mac" checkbox in the installer.)

(More specifically, to get my IDE-SD adapter bootable with 7.6.1, I installed 7.6.1 in Basilisk II with the for-any-mac checkbox, copied the contents over to a folder on my G4, and then booted the Mac OS 9.2.2 install disc from the restore set so I could be in a position to partition the SD card in a way that would boot the G4 before copying the 7.6.1 contents on, since HD Setup won't partition SD cards in USB adapters and the 7.6.1 installer does a machine ID check if you try to run it under 9.2.2 on the G4.)

Also, while they're not crashes, the sound output doesn't work (unsurprising, given how my currently-in-need-of-diagnosis-and-repair Mac Mini G4 worked with OS9), the Display control panel also won't work with the QS2002, so it's stuck with 640x480 and whatever color depth it defaults to, and running 7.6.1 with System.Enabler.356_patched_71x.bin shows the old boot splash layered on top of the new one.

Maybe, next time I feel like repeating the tests, I'll try swapping in System Enabler 356_patched_75x76x.bin.

Awesome breakdown and really interesting results

Still. I have to admit, the single 1.25 2003 running OS 9 holds a special place in my heart.

Quieter that the Dual 867, 2MB cache, and most apps really didn't use the 2nd CPU in OS9, so the thermals were so much better. I guess we all have our fond memories and favorites.

Everything you said makes a ton of sense but nowadays with the hacked Mac OS 9 release, unless you need expandability/certain peripherals I don't see a great advantage of a tower 1.25 GHz G4 over a Mac mini 1.25 GHz G4. It's approximately the same speed, even quieter, uses much less energy, and takes up much less space.

Awesome breakdown and really interesting results

Still. I have to admit, the single 1.25 2003 running OS 9 holds a special place in my heart.

Quieter that the Dual 867, 2MB cache, and most apps really didn't use the 2nd CPU in OS9, so the thermals were so much better. I guess we all have our fond memories and favorites.

Not one to ever use GeekBench, before now (because as you know… OS9 Lives!) — but after assisting someone upgrading an 867 DP MDD with a 1.25 GHZ DP MDD CPU (via removal of the R676 resisitor from the 867’s mobo)… in order to increase the Bus Speed from 133 MHz to 167 MHz… thought I might compare EveryMac.com’s MDD stats (which use GeekBench 2.0).

Could only source GeekBench 2.2 and that only works with Tiger 10.4.11 (not 10.4.6). So some machines here were quickly updated to OS 10.4.11.

Now, if you compare the GeekBench score of the original 867 DP MDD (727) with that of the 2002 1.25 GHz DP MDD (1078) that seems a good OA performance boost. Yet, if you compare the original 867 DP against the Single Processor 2003 1.25 DP, somehow the GeekBench results are the exact same 727? Whaaat?

Apologies for the large, attached MDD graphic - but uploaded or embedded any smaller, it becomes nearly unreadable. So you might temporarily switch to the Forum’s “Blu” theme - OR drag the graphic out of your browser and onto your desktop and then view it there @ full size.



Just for fun, compare the 2002 1.0 GHz DP MDD to the 2003 1.0 GHz Single Processor MDD. Geekbench 2.0. 727 vs. 570. But the 2003 FW 800 model was less expensive (by a mere $200). OR, the 2002 1.0 DP against the 2003 1.0 SP. (888 vs. 570) And $2499 vs. $1499. Wonder why I prefer to transplant 1.42 GHz DP processors onto FW 400 mobos?

EveryMac.com doesn’t list the 2003 1.25 DP MDDs’ specs (that I have yet to find anyway) but I did run GeekBench 2.2 on a 1.42 DP that I transplanted onto a 2003’s 1.25 DP’s mobo and came up with the following GeekBench 2.2 rating of 1167. Now I should put the original 1.25 DP CPU back in and GeekBench it again. AND maybe change the RAM. (Might also miss that 2.0 MB of L3 cache?)



AND this is all (of course) part of yet another little project on the ever-always-running list here.

So, anyone have a copy of GeekBench 2.0? •  Awaiting an answer from EveryMac.com on this.

---

PowerBook G4 1.5 17 - Geekbench score here 808. Every Mac, 745.

G4 Quicksilver with 1.67 GHz Sonnet CPU, 855. Every Mac, 1.0 GHz QS, 888.

I still do not like GeekBench.

I've updated the Mac mini 7.6.1 CD to Test Version 0.2.

You can download the iso from the Macintosh Garden if you want to try it out:
https://macintoshgarden.org/apps/mac-mini-g4-system-7

CD 0.1 had some incorrect icons; the System itself is unchanged from 0.1.
Also now just a 43 MB download.

it comes with 20 custom "effects" which are nothing more than transitions (wipe, dissolve...) and it can convert to different formats and sizes in realtime. that is all i know about it.