[muglo] Re: Jaguar on an early G4
- From: "Eric D." <hideme666@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <muglo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 10:09:01 -0500
on 20/3/03 1:05 PM, Alex at admeddemda@xxxxxx wrote:
>> Unequivocally, get OS X Jaguar, and, YES, you _can_ run Classic in Jaguar (I
>> type this e-mail to you from Outlook Express which hasn't been updated to OS
>> X yet)!!!!!!
>
> But... you can't do serial stuff even in classic mode... or can you?
> Like print via serial printers...
Basically a gport (Griffintechnology.com) or a Keyspan USB serial adapter
will do everything that a G3 Beige can with its serial ports in OS X!
I'm not 100% sure about printing *directly* in Classic, but if you can find
drivers for OS X for your hardware (and, I imagine there should be a few out
there by now for serial dot-matrix printers) you should be able to print to
it.
But, the cost of the adapters is as much as new USB hardware anyway, and,
even if it isn't, you're dealing with *ancient* hardware by computer
standards (5 years+)...
> And what about a serial modem? Can one use a serial modem in OSX? I
> dont think so...
Why not (use it with OS X-proper (not Classic), that is)? I wouldn't be
surprised if you didn't need to do *anything* other than to plug in the USB
serial adapter/install the gport to get serial modem support for OS X.
> Ok so maybe I'm one of the few ppl hating X for this.... but I
> happen to like my Imagewriter II and my 56k USR modem....
There should be drivers for the IW II for OS X (probably not Apple-supplied,
but, maybe), and there certainly are description files for a 56K USR (all
you require is the initialisation string and OS X has plenty of those -- the
adapter does the hard work)!
Terry from Terry's Tech Service in Parkhill could answer your questions
regarding serial stuff in OS X, I'm sure (519-294-0648) (& he could also
provide you with the computer and the adapter too probably... or, he might
have a completely different solution (this is Terry we're talking about
after all) ;).
The reason that Classic applications have only limited access to serial
equipment under OS X is that Classic applications are not allowed to control
or access hardware directly. The reason that OS X is so stable is that there
is a defined protocol for accessing hardware -- it adds computing overhead
but it also means that a poorly written application cannot bring down your
computer. Only poorly written drivers can do that, and, there's a lot more
quality control that goes into driver design than into general application
design.
> And in my thoughts on blue&whites and the possibility of aquiring
> one... I was thinking the G3 port serial adapter was a good choice to
> keep my serial devices running... certainly cheaper than a serial pci
> card... but then the internal modem is lost (bc the G3 serial port
> thingee goes in the modem slot)... I figured I could still use an
> external modem... but now I'm thinking, not in OSX... bummer
>
> guess there's no such thing as a USB modem....
Yep, they're ~$40-80 for 56 K.
But if you're going to have a serial port anyway (whether it is a USB -
serial adapter or a gport). and you already have a 56 K modem, you may as
well use the 56 K.
> why did Apple drop support for serial devices? I hate hate _hate_ it....
Because companies don't make money off selling serial & ADB equipment
anymore ;)
Seriously though, what use is there for serial now that we have USB? USB is
a cheap, fast (600 KByte/sec) and most importantly, universal solution for
low-speed/cost peripherals. And the killer feature, you can have up to 127
devices on the same bus (in theory) and the computer does all the hard work
of figuring out which one is supposed to be what. You could only ever have
one on serial ports, and a max of 7 on ADB (or did ADB max out in theory at
127 but in practice at 7?)
The one thing that incorporating USB and abandoning serial has done for Mac
users is made hardware a *lot* more Mac accessible than serial ever did, and
has given us the ability to walk into *any* computer store and find
peripherals that will work with our computers, OUT OF THE BOX.
Plus, we can *finally* buy two/three/multi-button Windows mice without
having to pay speciality manufacturers hefty premiums for low-quality mice.
I dislike one button mice with a passion so I'm quite happy with USB. I
couldn't do without my 2+1 button + scroll wheel optical mouse (great for
working on duvets, or carpets... not so good for desks ;P), or my Kensington
Turbo Mouse USB Pro (has a grand total of 10+1 buttons and a scroll wheel...
it's AWESOME)).
>> I am running it on a G3/400 laptop and wouldn't think of running anything
>> else anymore, and, the thing is that OS X is really taking advantage of the
>> laptop's features.
>
> My experience (limited) of X (10.1.5) is that it is a lot slower
> feeling than 9xx... I've used it on my older Tower system (500mhz but
> 50mhz bus) and on a 500mhz ibook... they both feel slow compared to
> 9xx on the same machine...
Was the iTinyCrapBook (ok, so they're not so bad, but the 12" screen doesn't
work well for my eyes... compared to the screens in the PowerBook G3 Lombard
and Pismo the iBook 12" seem "fuzzy") running 128 MB of RAM. Most iBooks
I've seen running OS X (n=3) run a paltry 128 MB of RAM. OS X doesn't
function in anything less than 256 and it needs 512 MB to work to its
minimum potential. Someone I know has the iBook 600, 128 MB of RAM, runs
Jaguar and has bought $1000 worth of software for the computer. I can't
fathom why she spent $1000 on software but couldn't bring herself to spend
$100 on RAM!
OS X feels slower at the beginning and that's because of Apple's
not-so-intelligent way of approaching menu display (I really think they
should deal with that).
But you simply cannot imagine how your work habits change once you get used
to OS X's strengths. The fact that I can happily do *anything* in *any*
application and know that my (unsaved) Word document won't go up in a poof
of smoke is so refreshing (with the exception of Classic apps -- sometimes
(50%) when one goes down, they'll (Classic only) all go down). I wouldn't
think twice about running, let's say, Netscape for OS X (one of the most
crash prone apps in existence... although, I don't even have it on my
computer b/c it's so bloated... Camino gives me all the good stuff of
Netscape, but none of the bad stuff like evil HTML e-mail, bloat,
featuritis, sluggishness, etc) or a beta version of Safari while my crucial
Excel document was open!
Similarly, the fact that I *NEVER* have to wait for an application to open,
or a process to finish has changed my work habits completely. I'll happily
tell Camino (*fast* web browser... nothing in OS 9 can even come close to it
and in OS X only Safari is as fast) to load 20 different web pages (which
would *kill* even the fastest of G4s in OS 9), hop away to another
application, read e-mail while I wait for the pages to be downloaded, and
then go back. Or, even better, I can open up these 20 pages in Camino
(tabbed, of course ;), read the pages as they come in and not experience so
much as a delay.
Now that I'm used to OS X, it blows the socks off OS 9 and gives Windows
2000 on a fast Pentium a good run for its money (I'd take my 400 MHz G3
running OS X over a 2 GHz Pentium for most real-world tasks (if speed's an
issue, there's no contest :( but I couldn't say the same anymore for OS 9...
Windows is becoming a pretty slick OS but Apple has stayed one step ahead of
the game (even on older computers) with OS X).
> That said, my biggest frustration with X is that I know squat about
> it... I mean, sure, I can _use_ it like any shlubb who buys a new
> mac... but I don;t _know_ it, like I know the other OS's... I figured
> fooling around with it would solve the problem... but I find it is so
> different I just don't know what to do with it.... one nice thing
> tho... jabber works in X... jabber never did work in 9xx
Chuckles... you're right, there isn't really any way to experience OS X
unless you run it on a daily basis. Its strengths don't come out until you
experience it and I guess that's its strength. It's still Mac-like enough
that looking at it doesn't in and of itself cause one to see a reason to
switch.
But, if you have a laptop and always put it to sleep, you'll suddenly notice
that:
"I haven't had to restart, in, oh, how long was it now? Oh, dear. I can't
remember! It must've been two or three weeks now. No, wait. When did I last
have to install an Apple update?" ;).
And, another beautiful thing, I haven't had to do any extension/application
conflict trouble shooting.
You really need to install it and run it for a while to experience it. I'm
sure you can pick up OS X 10.1 disks for a song on EBay or around town
(perhaps someone who's upgraded to OS X 10.2 from 10.1/10.0 still has the
disks... mine are long gone) now and give it a whirl. OS X 10.1.5 was pretty
damn stable on its own.
>> ... Though, I am tempted to give YellowDog Linux 3.0 a whirl again just
>> because since it looks like they've made it a lot more user friendly than
>> 2.x days (my biggest headache was screen size/depth).
>>
>> Your G4 tower will do an excellent job with OS X. 0.5 GB RAM is enough to
>> let Jaguar shine, but I would suggest you up it to 768 MB if you have the
>> extra dough lying around. The AltiVec code in the G4 combined with your ATI
>> 16 MB video card (PCI?) will really make the interface zing (compared to OS
>> 9 which doesn't use hardware acceleration), but you would want to consider
>> adding another HD (ATA/66 or /100). 40 GB drives seem to be coming down in
>> price and you could pick one up with a decent warrantee for around $150 CDN.
>
> does this also hold true for G4 upgraded G3's? As in, a G3 with a G4
> Apple ZIF? Is it the zif or the motherboard design that makes the
> diff?
Yes, I think the answer to your question is, yes.
The "Altivec" code is built into all G4 CPUs (which is why they're called
G4s and not G3s ;). That's what sets a G4 apart from a G3 as a processor --
otherwise they're nearly identical (at the same speed they both do
non-AltiVec operations just as rapidly).
Altivec is a set of instructions which are designed to manipulate audio and
video data very efficiently. OS X has been written to take advantage of
AltiVec and that means that the GUI displays more quickly (since it's very
graphics oriented) and smoothly on a G4 than a G3, given the same video card
and everything else.
Since OS 9 does not take advantage of AltiVec you won't see any improved
performance (of say a G3/450 vs a G4/450) by using a G4, except for such
speciality applications like PhotoShop or video games.
The video card will make a difference though for OS X. A Beige G3/300
running OS X with a 32 MB Radeon video card will do a smoother job of making
OS X's GUI _look_ good and smooth and feel fast than a Beige G3 upgraded to
a G4/500 but still running the puny 2 MB on-board ATI Rage video. But, the
Beige G4/500 will smoke the G3/300 in every other aspect.
The mobo design will have less of an impact on performance, but that's
because the Beige G3s ran at 66 MHz bus speed vs. the 100 MHz in the B&W G3s
& the Yikes G4s.
Eric.
_________________________________________________
For information concerning the MUGLO List just click on
http://muglo.on.ca/pages/members.html#Joinmuglo
Don't forget to periodically check our web site at:
http://muglo.on.ca/
Other related posts:
