>Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2007 09:51:16 -0800
>From: "Chuck Guzis" <cclist at sydex.com>
>I picked up another Mac yesterday--a beige 300 Mhz G3 with 256MB,
>and a 15 GB hard disk. It's also got a USB adapter plugged into one
>of the PCI slots. It's running OS 9.something. Set me back $20.
>Were Zip drives a standard part of these things?
>
>On a side-by-side with a Win2K P1 225MHz system with the same amount
>of memory, I think the WIndoze box has snappier response and has
>better video.
>
>For you Mac addicts, what do you think should be my next step in
>getting the most out of this box?
My experience with the Beige G3 is that the stock hard drives are
slow as molasses. The built-in IDE bus is only 16.7 MB/s (whichever
ATA that is) but the hard drive doesn't even perform up to that
level--at least mine did not.
Once I installed a more modern hard drive (faster media rate, i.e.
faster data from platters to heads) the machine showed a marked
improvement in performance.
Beyond that, you can easily spend more upgrading than a faster newer
machine would cost you on the used market. That said...
A faster IDE card would improve things as well. Acard makes a very
nice two channel ATA-133 card however, it will set you back about
twice what you paid for the machine.
Some years ago VST Tech sold an ATA-66 card based on the Promise
UltraTek 66 card. If you move three or four SM resistors, possibly
pull the half-size metal can oscillator (there are different versions
of the UT66 and some have the Osc. and others don't) and desolder and
reprogram the Winbond Flash chip, you can convert a cheap (<$5)
Promise UltraTek66 into a VST UltraTek66. If you care, I'll try to
hunt up the conversion instructions. The Promise cards were
apparently OEM in DELL machines or some such, so there are a bunch of
them on the used market.
The bus speed and bus-CPU multiplier are controlled by a jumper block
on the front left of the motherboard. You can change the bus speed
>from 66MHz to 75 (IIRC) or 83 MHz by moving jumpers. However, many
of the Beige G3s won't operate at 83 MHz and tests show that this
doesn't really make a big difference in performance.
The 300 MHz CPU can often be run at around 366 MHz, so you can speed
your CPU a bit by changing the bus-CPU ratio. Many folks have done
this reliably, but my experience was that it caused problems after a
while.
CPU replacements up to 1.1 GHz are also available but the
manufacturer's (PowerLogix) retail outlet (OWC, macsales.com) seems
to be out of them. See above about spending more money than a newer
used computer would cost... There's a gap in speeds between 500 MHz
and 900 MHz having to do with the version history of the PPC750.
The machine used PC66 SDRAM but PC100 or PC133 will also work. DIMM
capacities up to 256 MB are supported but some addressing modes are
not. So you need (I think) 16 chip DIMMs on the 256 MB capacity.
IIRC eight chip 256 MB DIMMs will not work or will only be seen as
128 MB. 512 MB DIMMs won't work because of limitations of the
Motorola/Freescale MPC106 memory/PCI controller/bridge.
For the things where my memory is hazy (indicated by a ? or "I
think") check the articles on G3 computers at xlr8yourmac.com.
Also, there's a link from the FAQ there to the jumper settings for
the Beige G3 motherboard clock and ratio settings.
>I don't care for the Mac monitor that came with it--has anyone tried
>hooking up a fixed-frequency SOG workstation monitor to it? I've got
>a nice HP/Sony model that might be a candidate.
Mac DB15 to VGA adapters are common and cheap (=<$4, I sell a
multi-rez model for $4 shipped in USA). If the monitor will work
with a VGA output, it should be possible to make it work on the
built-in video of the Beige G3. However, the Beige G3 and earlier
Macs rely on sense codes in the monitor cable to indicate what
resolutions are supported. When an adapter is used the sense codes
are provided by the adapter. Some adapters are fixed-resolution
coded so it's tough to get anything but the adapter's fixed
resolution out of the Mac if you use a fixed resolution adapter.
Other adapters are "universal" and have DIP switches to support many
resolutions, and one of the resolution code choices is "21"
multi-resolution".
Jeff Walther
Today I pulled out the boards in my vax 3800 and I found 7 microprocessors
besides the CVAX. They are,
2x 68000, 8096, 80186, 2x 8086, Z80.
Just a little discovery to share with you.
vax, 9000
>Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2007 12:57:06 -0800 (PST)
>From: Cameron Kaiser <spectre at floodgap.com>
>> I picked up another Mac yesterday--a beige 300 Mhz G3 with 256MB,
>> On a side-by-side with a Win2K P1 225MHz system with the same amount
>> of memory, I think the WIndoze box has snappier response and has
>> better video.
>
>The beige G3 has only a Rage II+ card by default. The later Revision 2 and
>3 use Rage Pro. Thus, I think the video issue you're noticing is probably
>the accelerator. The original 300 is almost certainly Revision 1.
The video chip can be visually examined, although the "Wings" card
(AV card) may be in the way. It will have Rage II or Rage Pro (or
Rage Turbo?) printed on it. You may also be able to get this
information from Apple system Profiler in the Apple menu.
If the ROM DIMM has not been switched out, you can determine your
revision by looking at the ROM revision in the first page of Apple
System Profiler. Under "Production Information" look at "ROM
Revision". If it is $77D.40F2 then you have a Revision A ROM. If
this ROM shipped with this motherboard then you also have a revision
1 motherboard. However, the ROM DIMM is pretty easy to switch so
there's no guarantee that the machine contains the ROM it originally
shipped with and all of the ROM revisions work with all of the
motherboard revisions.
If the ROM revision is $77D.45F1 it is a revision B. If it is
$77D.45F2 it is a revision C and absent ROM swapping the machine
probably has a RAGE Pro video chip.
If you have a Rev. A ROM, then the built-in IDE channels in the
machine will only support 1 device per channel. You need Rev. B or
C ROM for two device support per channel.
You can also determine your ROM revision by looking at the Apple part
number on the two ROM chips on the ROM DIMM. However, I don't
remember the numbers. It's something like 341S0409 and 0408 is Rev.
A, 341S0494 adn 0495 is Rev. C and I've never seen a Rev. B with the
part numbers on it so I can't say, but I imagine it's 341S04xx with
xx up close to 90.
No matter which motherboard you have, switching to a B or C ROM will
enable two device support on the IDE channels.
>You might as well get a Rage Orion and I think you'll find the performance
>much better. The Rage Orion is a 16MB Rage 128 PCI card, and I know from
>personal experience that it is Mac-compatible and has good performance.
>They're pretty cheap on the used market.
Rage Orion was ATI's name for one of the Macintosh versions of the
Rage 128. PC versions of the Rage 128 won't work. (I am not
contradicting Cameron, just restating his information a bit.) It
may be possible to do a conversion from PC version to Mac version,
but I don't think anyone has ever reported a successful modification.
The Radeon 7000 works well in the Beige and the Sapphire version of
the PCI card with DDR memory is easily converted to Macintosh use.
It is also just $30 at Newegg. Simply remove the eight pin SOIC
serial flash chip and replace it with a blank ST Micro M25P10. It
should then either flash with the current Mac firmware updater from
ATI or it may require the R7000-ROM-208 version. It's been a
while. I know the latter will work. I'm not sure about the former.
Whichever way, update to the latest firmware afterwards, because
there are some Sleep issues with earlier versions.
3D driver support is only official after OS 9.2 but if you install
the Open GL 1.22 or 1.24 extensions by hand into OS 9.1 it works fine.
Jeff Walther
> On Sun, 7 Jan 2007, Scott Quinn wrote:
> > My guess has to do with processors: i80486 binaries can run just fine
> > on Pentium+ systems.
>
> so can 8088 binaries. (With occasional exceptions that don't typically
> show up in common usage (such as PUSH SP))
> But not all Pentium+ binaries will run on 8088, or even i80486.
>
>
> There seemed to have been a cultural difference between Motorola and
> intel.
>
> Motorola would design each major generation from scratch, thus
> producing a
> much better processor, but without legacy software.
>
> intel, OTOH, would bend over backwards to try to maintain 4004
> compatibility.
We're talking about two slightly different things here, though- 68000
(while it did not have provisions for easily running 6800 code) had a
common-mode so that programs built on the 68040 could run on the 68000,
but you can also have code that requires instructions (or other things)
added on later 68000-series processors, similar to Intel (variable
286-style segments, the copy-on-write provision of the 80486, etc.).
The transition between 68000 and PPC was more like the Intel gap
between the x86 and the 960 - they are completely different processors
with no common heritage (the common heritage piece was provided by
Apple in firmware). I haven't worked with them, but AFAIK the new
embedded versions of the 68000 (ColdFire?) maintain the tradition of
working with earlier 68ks (except in a few cases).
> Chuck wrote
> On 6 Jan 2007 at 19:41, Cameron Kaiser wrote:
>
>>
>> So I don't see what's so restrictive about the Mac requirements at
>> all,
>> frankly.
>
> You're right, it's a matter of small degree. Mac OS 8 = 1997;
> Windows 95 = 1995. Intel 80486 = 1989; PPC 601 = 1992. It's pretty
> much a moot point anyway--everyone's going to be x86 by-and-by.
>
> Cheers,
> Chuck
>
My guess has to do with processors: i80486 binaries can run just fine
on Pentium+ systems.
The software probably can work just fine at 68040 speeds, but then when
run on PowerPC systems you have the emulation overhead which drops
speeds to around a IIci (25MHz 68030, think Sun-3) on a 8100/80 (80MHz
PPC601) Some companies didn't want the bother of maintaining two
versions (68k and PPC, especially after the PPC machines had been out a
year or two), so they would compile PPC only- hence the higher system
requirements.
--- John Foust <jfoust at threedee.com> wrote:
**>> snip <<**
>
> Back in late 1998, my buddy Sheldon Leemon (author
> of "Mapping the C-64")
> won the grand prize in an online sweepstakes. The
> prize was a full-size
> promotional version of the robot from the remake o
f
> "Lost in Space".
> It had been touring the USA and Japan. Doesn't lo
ok
> quite the same:
>
> http://www.robotoys.com/lis99.jpg
>
> 600 pounds, New Line Cinema valued it at $4,500.
We
> debated what we
> might do with it, never coming to any good
> conclusions. I was tempted
> to store it in my barn. He never picked it up. I
t
> sat in a shipping
> yard for months. I think it eventually started
> running up charges and
> was sent back in mid-1999. I wonder where it went
!
>
> - John
>
Urghh!!!!
Why would you want that piece of trash?!!!
Sorry, but I think it's the worst designed robot
in the history of films!
Robbie the robot (Forbidden Planet, 3 or 4 eps
of Lost In Space 60's tv series, background in
Gremlins 1 (or 2?) and even in a Columbo film
>from the 70's!), Gort (Day The Earth Stood
Still), Maximillion (The Black Hole) and more
modern robot's such as Robocop, ED-209 and
Caine (all from the Robocop films), plus the
T-1000 (Terminator), are much better designed
to be menacing and/or cool looking.
When I saw the one from the Lost In Space
film (from 90's) I just laughed. To be honest,
going from the picture, it looks like a cross
between the robot's from Short Circuit and
Caine from Robocop 2.
Regards,
Andrew D. Burton
aliensrcooluk at yahoo.co.uk
--- "Bryan K. Blackburn" <oldcomp at cox.net> wrote:
> Recently we have seen recreations of several vinta
ge
> computers like the
> Mark-8 Minicomputer, the Apple 1, the IMSAI 8080 a
nd
> most recently the
> Altair 8800, but wait till you see this!!!
>
> eBay item # 230051400851
>
> The effort that must have went into this project..
.!
> Detailed
> construction photos here:
>
> http://www.lostinspacerobot.com/newsletter.html
>
> I confess that I have always wanted one of these!
:)
> I have no
> connection with the seller etc. & etc.
>
My dad has got 2 plastic models from Lost In
Space. One had the giant holding a boulder
above his head with John and Don below him
and the other one was a 6" (or thereabouts)
tall model of the Robinson robot.
Not sure where they are now though.
If he had the money I'm sure he would want
the replica of the Robinson robot :)
Regards,
Andrew D. Burton
aliensrcooluk at yahoo.co.uk
and I should also point out some of the screen is
reverse video, some is blinking. Anyone know what
happened to John Allain?
--- cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org
<chrism3667 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> it only helps if youre going to swing by and unseat
> the 80186 from its bizarre cage. I aint touching one
> ever again. But thanks all the same Roger :)
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam
protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
--- Sridhar Ayengar <ploopster at gmail.com> wrote:
> aliensrcooluk at yahoo.co.uk wrote:
> > Why would you want that piece of trash?!!!
> > Sorry, but I think it's the worst designed robot
> > in the history of films!
> > Robbie the robot (Forbidden Planet, 3 or 4 eps
> > of Lost In Space 60's tv series, background in
> > Gremlins 1 (or 2?) and even in a Columbo film
> > from the 70's!), Gort (Day The Earth Stood
> > Still), Maximillion (The Black Hole) and more
> > modern robot's such as Robocop, ED-209 and
> > Caine (all from the Robocop films), plus the
> > T-1000 (Terminator), are much better designed
> > to be menacing and/or cool looking.
>
> Are you sure you're not talking about the T-800?
> The T-1000 is the
> liquid-metal jobbie.
>
> Peace... Sridhar
>
Ooops. Yeah, I meant the T-800 (Arnold
Schwarzenegger).
Whilst double-checking the T-number, I came
across this huge list of goof's (page is
around 200KB's):
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0103064/goofs
Regards,
Andrew D. Burton
aliensrcooluk at yahoo.co.uk
