5 Nov
2012
5 Nov
'12
3:21 a.m.
I think I have my head wrapped around the hardware tuneups that my Mac
SE/30 requires. Moving on to the software. I've found install media and
can get System 6 installed just fine. I can read and write HD floppies
in my Linux box to move things in and out by sneakernet.
I'm having a nasty time getting the ethernet board to work. I'm using an
Asante MacCon PSD slot ethernet board. I downloaded the driver pack
(still at Asante's website), made a driver install disk, and installed the
driver stuff. This installs a driver for the board, ethertalk, and
MacTCP. A diagnostic program on the disk says that the ethernet board is
checking out fine, but I can't get the machine to talk or listen to the
network. It's not at all clear how the MacTCP panel is supposed to be
used. I've tried following http://www.applefool.com/se30/ and nothing
works (though I can't get the Legacy Recover CD referred to there).
Is there someone on this list who has done this before who can help me?
--
David Griffith
dgriffi at cs.csubak.edu
A: Because it fouls the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?
5 Nov
5 Nov
6:40 a.m.
Hi,
Am 05.11.2012 um 09:21 schrieb David Griffith:
I think I have my head wrapped around the hardware
tuneups that my
Mac SE/30 requires. Moving on to the software. I've found install
media and can get System 6 installed just fine. I can read and
write HD floppies in my Linux box to move things in and out by
sneakernet.
My personal opinion: Get System, 7.0.1 for free from Apple as
download. It behaves slower, yes, but you'll get way more programs to
run. The machines I'd stick to System 6 are 68000 at 8 MHz like the Plus,
SE or comparables.
I'm having a nasty time getting the ethernet board
to work. I'm
using an Asante MacCon PSD slot ethernet board. I downloaded the
driver pack (still at Asante's website), made a driver install disk,
and installed the driver stuff. This installs a driver for the
board, ethertalk, and MacTCP. A diagnostic program on the disk says
that the ethernet board is checking out fine, but I can't get the
machine to talk or listen to the network. It's not at all clear how
the MacTCP panel is supposed to be used. I've tried following
http://www.applefool.com/se30/
and nothing works (though I can't get the Legacy Recover CD
referred to there).
Is there someone on this list who has done this before who can help
me?
Yes. First, check if your connection to the network is valid (cabling,
switch position on the rear panel, link LED on your Hub/Switch). You
can also verify with changing the AppleTalk connection to Ethernet in
the Network control panel. If you don't get an error, the connection
is ok. That's a good test when you're using 10BASE-2 cabling with no
indication if the net is working.
Btw, since the board is a plain 8390-based board, the Apple Network
Installer disk also works fine.
For MacTCP, you'll have to switch to Ether*net*, not Ether*talk*.
Ethernet is the native encapsulation type on Ethernet. (EtherTalk,
LocalTalk, TokenTalk will encap TCP/IP-Packets into AppleTalk, for
transporting IP over links which don't support native IP encap.
LocalTalk is a good example for such a link. You need a gateway to
decap such packets. Any Cisco Router with AppleTalk support will do,
btw.)
Enter a valid IP address for your network into the appropriate text
entry field and click on more.
Obtain Address: Manually (I don't know if MacTCP supports DHCP properly)
Enter Subnet mask and Router(=Gateway) address.
Enter a (default-)domain name and DNS IP-Address. Mark the entry as
default.
If MacTCP complains after closing that settings will become active
only after reboot, do so.
I strongly recommend to get the MacTCP Watcher freeware to get more
diagnostics on the Mac itself. You should be aware that you CAN NOT
ping the Mac from your LAN until you launch a TCP/IP program on the
Mac. This will open the MacTCP driver and from this point on the Mac
is pingable.
Hope this helps to get your box running!
:wq! PoC
5:07 p.m.
On 5 November 2012 11:40, Schindler Patrik <poc at pocnet.net> wrote:
My personal opinion: Get System, 7.0.1 for free from Apple as download. It
behaves slower, yes, but you'll get way more programs to run. The machines
I'd stick to System 6 are 68000 at 8 MHz like the Plus, SE or comparables.
I agree.
In fact, for the SE/30, I'd say go for 7.5.5.
Networking Macs got a /lot/ easier between System 6 (arcane & quite
complex), 7.0 (easier), 7.5 (vaguely sensible) and 7.6 (really pretty
easy).
System 6 doesn't really natively understand networking. 7.0 does, but
only speaks Appletalk unaided. 7.5 has a vague notion of what TCP/IP
is but doesn't really approve of it. :?)
By 7.6 they'd given in and accepted it but your SE/30's too old.
--
Liam Proven ? Profile: http://lproven.livejournal.com/profile
Email: lproven at cix.co.uk ? GMail/G+/Twitter/Flickr/Facebook: lproven
MSN: lproven at hotmail.com ? Skype/AIM/Yahoo/LinkedIn: liamproven
Tel: +44 20-8685-0498 ? Cell: +44 7939-087884
5:59 p.m.
On Nov 5, 2012, at 5:07 PM, Liam Proven wrote:
On 5 November 2012 11:40, Schindler Patrik <poc at
pocnet.net> wrote:
Open Transport made things a lot easier in a number of ways, but it
is resource-intensive. An '030 machine might be able to handle it,
just consider "classic" networking if it really eats into your
memory.
OT 1.1.2 (which I think is the last separately-available version,
but someone should correct me if I'm wrong) will run on anything down
to 7.1 on a 68030 or later. Try it on whatever system you're running
your SE/30 on!
My personal opinion: Get System, 7.0.1 for free from Apple as download. It
behaves slower, yes, but you'll get way more programs to run. The machines
I'd stick to System 6 are 68000 at 8 MHz like the Plus, SE or comparables.
I agree.
In fact, for the SE/30, I'd say go for 7.5.5.
Networking Macs got a /lot/ easier between System 6 (arcane & quite
complex), 7.0 (easier), 7.5 (vaguely sensible) and 7.6 (really pretty
easy). System 6 doesn't really natively understand
networking. 7.0 does, but
only speaks Appletalk unaided. 7.5 has a vague notion of what TCP/IP
is but doesn't really approve of it. :?)
I disagree; MacTCP is a little funky, but I've used it to great
effect on 7.1 and 7.5 systems (and with somewhat more difficulty
on 6.x, but finding applications supporting TCP and 6.x can be
a challenge).
Appletalk, on the other hand, was easy enough from 6.x on. I
really miss it some days.
By 7.6 they'd given in and accepted it but your
SE/30's too old.
Indeed; I'm not actually 100% sure whether you can run 7.6 on
an SE/30 (I've certainly run it on '030 machines, but I don't
really recommend it). 7.5.x can run fine on 4MB machines and
doesn't feel sluggish on an '030 like 7.6 does.
- Dave
6:33 p.m.
By 7.6
they'd given in and accepted it but your SE/30's too old.
Indeed; I'm not actually 100% sure whether you can run 7.6 on
an SE/30 (I've certainly run it on '030 machines, but I don't
really recommend it). 7.5.x can run fine on 4MB machines and
doesn't feel sluggish on an '030 like 7.6 does.
6:49 p.m.
Am 06.11.2012 um 00:33 schrieb Cameron Kaiser:
The SE/30 does not have 32-bit clean ROMs, so it
cannot run System
7.6.
If you steal the ROM SIMM from those relatively rare IIsis that have
one,
or those relatively rare IIfxs, that will make the SE/30 32-bit
clean, and
thus able to boot 7.6.
I tried to insert a IIfx ROM into the SE/30. It simply doesn't work.
Got the checkerboard-screen and nothing else.
:wq! PoC
7:03 p.m.
I tried to insert a IIfx ROM into the SE/30. It simply
doesn't work.
Got the checkerboard-screen and nothing else.
Maybe it's a particular revision of the ROM. But I've never tried it
personally (never owned a IIfx *sniffle*).
--
------------------------------------ personal: http://www.cameronkaiser.com/ --
Cameron Kaiser * Floodgap Systems * www.floodgap.com * ckaiser at floodgap.com
-- People are weird. -- Law & Order SVU ---------------------------------------
9:38 p.m.
On 11/5/2012 4:03 PM, Cameron Kaiser wrote:
This has never worked for me either. With the ROM from my IIfxI usually
get the checkerboard pattern. I -seem- to recallactually getting it to
boot at one point, but it never successfully completed startup. (This
latter recollection may be faulty as it has been a very long time since
I last tried it.)
- Josh
I tried to
insert a IIfx ROM into the SE/30. It simply doesn't work.
Got the checkerboard-screen and nothing else.
Maybe it's a particular revision
of the ROM. But I've never tried it
personally (never owned a IIfx *sniffle*).
6 Nov
6 Nov
9:43 a.m.
On Nov 5, 2012, at 6:33 PM, Cameron Kaiser wrote:
The SE/30 does not have 32-bit clean ROMs, so it
cannot run System 7.6.
If you steal the ROM SIMM from those relatively rare IIsis that have one,
or those relatively rare IIfxs, that will make the SE/30 32-bit clean, and
thus able to boot 7.6.
I am also told that PDS upgrades, such as an '040, will allow the SE/30
to boot up to 8.1.
That would make sense, since PDS upgrades usually include a
ROM e.g. because the '040 MMU is very different from the
'030 MMU.
- Dave
5 Nov
5 Nov
6:48 p.m.
Am 05.11.2012 um 23:59 schrieb David Riley:
OT 1.1.2 behaved slower on my IIfx than "classic" networking. Pity I
lost the benchmark notes. :-/ I'd recommend OT for fast 040 or PPC
machines.
MacTCP 2.1 has been patched so you can enter fields similar to
OpenTransport TCP/IP-Settings. Watch out for it!
Btw, Apps: Don't even think about running any browser under anything
older than OS X 10.3.9. Most sites nowadays use HTML-features, old
browsers just don't understand. Either they look crappy or some
JavaScript crashes Netcrap or Internet Exploder. Most don't understand
PNG-Graphics. I won't even talk of NCSA Mosaic or some text-only
browsers. (I did not test iCab recently.) And if that's not enough,
running Netcrab 4.5 even on a PMac 7100/66 is painfully slow compared
to what I'm used to from my main Mac (Dual PMac G5 at 2GHz). And this
machine is also a few years old...
Networking
Macs got a /lot/ easier between System 6 (arcane & quite
complex), 7.0 (easier), 7.5 (vaguely sensible) and 7.6 (really pretty
easy).
Open Transport made things a lot easier in a number of ways, but it
is resource-intensive. An '030 machine might be able to handle it,
just consider "classic" networking if it really eats into your
memory. OT 1.1.2 (which I think is the last
separately-available version,
but someone should correct me if I'm wrong) will run on anything down
to 7.1 on a 68030 or later. Try it on whatever system you're running
your SE/30 on!
It basically works. You'll have to install 1.1 first and then upgrade
to 1.1.2. The OT-On/Off-Switcher is a special kind of App which 7.1
doesn't understand: It thinks it's a plain document. It's unusable for
that reason.
System 6
doesn't really natively understand networking. 7.0 does, but
only speaks Appletalk unaided. 7.5 has a vague notion of what TCP/IP
is but doesn't really approve of it. :?)
I disagree; MacTCP is a little funky, but I've used it to great
effect on 7.1 and 7.5 systems (and with somewhat more difficulty
on 6.x, but finding applications supporting TCP and 6.x can be
a challenge). Appletalk, on the other hand, was easy enough from 6.x
on. I
really miss it some days.
With a bunch of retro machines, there's no reason to miss it ;-)
7.5.x can run fine on 4MB machines and doesn't
feel sluggish on an
'030 like 7.6 does.
On 4MB machines? You don't have much RAM free for Applications, then,
I suppose?
:wq! PoC
7:02 p.m.
Btw, Apps: Don't even think about running any
browser under anything
older than OS X 10.3.9. Most sites nowadays use HTML-features, old
browsers just don't understand. Either they look crappy or some
JavaScript crashes Netcrap or Internet Exploder. Most don't understand
PNG-Graphics. I won't even talk of NCSA Mosaic or some text-only
browsers. (I did not test iCab recently.) And if that's not enough,
running Netcrab 4.5 even on a PMac 7100/66 is painfully slow compared
to what I'm used to from my main Mac (Dual PMac G5 at 2GHz). And this
machine is also a few years old...
*cough*Classilla*cough*
Though in fairness I'm targetting it to mobile sites, which work very
well on that class of machines. My PowerBook 1400 does quite nicely on
mobile CNN, for example.
--
------------------------------------ personal: http://www.cameronkaiser.com/ --
Cameron Kaiser * Floodgap Systems * www.floodgap.com * ckaiser at floodgap.com
-- Don't treat fictional people as if they're real. It only encourages them. --
6 Nov
6 Nov
8:46 a.m.
Am 06.11.2012 um 01:02 schrieb Cameron Kaiser:
*cough*Classilla*cough*
Thanks for the hint, I didn't know that one! Seems to be a good thing
to test on my 9600! But since I prefer MacOS 7 or older on my boxes,
this doesn't help on these.
Though in fairness I'm targetting it to mobile
sites, which work very
well on that class of machines. My PowerBook 1400 does quite nicely on
mobile CNN, for example.
That's a good hint! Even Wikipedia seems to be reasonably useful!
:wq! PoC
5 Nov
5 Nov
10:26 p.m.
On Tue, 6 Nov 2012, Schindler Patrik wrote:
MacTCP 2.1 has been patched so you can enter fields similar to OpenTransport
TCP/IP-Settings. Watch out for it!
Do you have a copy of MacTCP already patched to 2.1? Every time I try to
do the patch myself, it aborts with an "Error -50".
System 6 doesn't really natively understand
networking. 7.0 does, but
only speaks Appletalk unaided. 7.5 has a vague notion of what TCP/IP
is but doesn't really approve of it. :?)
I disagree; MacTCP is a little funky, but I've used it to great
effect on 7.1 and 7.5 systems (and with somewhat more difficulty
on 6.x, but finding applications supporting TCP and 6.x can be
a challenge). Btw, Apps: Don't even think about running any
browser under anything older
than OS X 10.3.9. Most sites nowadays use HTML-features, old browsers just
don't understand. Either they look crappy or some JavaScript crashes Netcrap
or Internet Exploder. Most don't understand PNG-Graphics. I won't even talk
of NCSA Mosaic or some text-only browsers. (I did not test iCab recently.)
And if that's not enough, running Netcrab 4.5 even on a PMac 7100/66 is
painfully slow compared to what I'm used to from my main Mac (Dual PMac
G5 at 2GHz). And this machine is also a few years old...
I'm not terribly interested in running a web browser on this machine.
I'll be fine using telnet, ftp, gopher, irc, and maybe ssh (if such a
beast exists).
\--
David Griffith
dgriffi at cs.csubak.edu
A: Because it fouls the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?
6 Nov
6 Nov
12:48 a.m.
And if
that's not enough, running Netcrab 4.5 even on a PMac 7100/66 is
painfully slow compared to what I'm used to from my main Mac (Dual PMac
G5 at 2GHz). And this machine is also a few years old...
I'm not terribly interested in running a web browser on this machine.
I'll be fine using telnet, ftp, gopher, irc, and maybe ssh (if such a
beast exists).
7:35 a.m.
Am 06.11.2012 um 04:26 schrieb David Griffith:
Yes, i do. Untouched, since MacTCP modifies itself thru configuration.
Shall I attach it to the list?
MacTCP 2.1 has
been patched so you can enter fields similar to
OpenTransport TCP/IP-Settings. Watch out for it!
Do you have a copy of MacTCP
already patched to 2.1? Every time I
try to do the patch myself, it aborts with an "Error -50". I'm not terribly interested in running a web
browser on this
machine. I'll be fine using telnet, ftp, gopher, irc, and maybe ssh
(if such a beast exists).
Look for Nifty Telnet, which also supports sshv1. Perhaps a better
idea would be to use Better Telnet to a *NIX machine in the local LAN
and ssh from there. At least, that is what I do.
:wq! PoC
9:25 a.m.
MacTCP 2.1 has been patched so you can enter fields
similar to
OpenTransport TCP/IP-Settings. Watch out for it!
Do you have a copy of MacTCP already patched to 2.1? Every time I
try to do the patch myself, it aborts with an "Error -50".
5 Nov
5 Nov
6:33 p.m.
Am 05.11.2012 um 23:07 schrieb Liam Proven:
In fact, for the SE/30, I'd say go for 7.5.5.
I'd disagree. It eats a LOT of RAM and CPU-Resources. And it takes WAY
longer to boot. 7.5.5 would be my choice on 040-machines. Even on my
IIfx, I'm "only" running 7.1.
Networking Macs got a /lot/ easier between System 6
(arcane & quite
complex), 7.0 (easier), 7.5 (vaguely sensible) and 7.6 (really pretty
easy).
Networking was pretty easy with System 6. Networking is not only
restricted to TCP/IP. AppleTalk works like a charm, even with System
6. There also basic client apps for some services. Eudora, Fetch,
Newswatcher, Ircle, MacX...
System 6 doesn't really natively understand
networking.
Wrong. It does not natively understand *TCP/IP*. It speaks AppleTalk
thru LocalTalk, Ethernet- and Token Ring-Boards.
7.0 does
Wrong. You also need MacTCP.
but only speaks Appletalk unaided.
Wrong. There's no difference between System 6 and up to System 7.1 in
terms of networking.
7.5 has a vague notion of what TCP/IP is but
doesn't really approve
of it. :?)
By 7.6 they'd given in and accepted it but your SE/30's too old.
System 7.5 upwards had OpenTransport. It's really bloat but if you own
a fast machine, it's worth the effort.
:wq! PoC
7:02 p.m.
On 5 November 2012 23:33, Schindler Patrik <poc at pocnet.net> wrote:
It works, sure. It's no use in 2012, but yes, it works.
Yes, which, as I said, is useless today except for talking to other 1980s Macs.
I want to /use/ my Macs. E.g. to write on them and then send the
result over to my modern Linux PC for cleaning up, format conversion
and submission to my editor or posting on one of my blogs or
something.
So you contradict me and then quote the line that agrees with your
contradiction? Huh?
Am 05.11.2012 um 23:07 schrieb Liam Proven:
I disagree in turn. Until it died of capacitor failure, I had my
Classic II with 10MB of RAM and a 16MHz 68030 on a 16-bit bus running
6.0.8, 7.0.1, 7.5.5 and 7.6.1.
With enough addons to make it a pleasant and productive environment,
System 6 was not really significantly smaller or faster than 7.x, but
it was a lot more limited. 7.0 is better but still very limited and
7.5 introduced new technologies that felt a bit unfinished to me.
I ran 7.6.1 from preference. Its performance was just fine, even on a
machine below the official lowest spec the OS will support. By modern
OS standards it is tiny and very simple and quick.
If someone is not a classic MacOS expert, I would recommend they run
the latest version that their hardware can support.
Yes, 6 does Appletalk, but Appletalk is really almost no use today and
is no help in trying to get a classic Mac talking to modern machines
for file transfer or anything. You *need* TCP/IP and the latest web
browser you can find, just to have a chance of downloading anything -
I used Netscape Navigator 4.0.4 or Communicator 4.6 or thereabouts.
In fact, for the SE/30, I'd say go for 7.5.5.
I'd disagree. It eats a LOT of RAM and CPU-Resources. And it takes WAY
longer to boot. 7.5.5 would be my choice on 040-machines. Even on my IIfx,
I'm "only" running 7.1. Networking
Macs got a /lot/ easier between System 6 (arcane & quite
complex), 7.0 (easier), 7.5 (vaguely sensible) and 7.6 (really pretty
easy).
Networking was pretty easy with System 6. Networking is not only restricted
to TCP/IP. AppleTalk works like a charm, even with System 6. There also
basic client apps for some services. Eudora, Fetch, Newswatcher, Ircle,
MacX...
Again, not worth the bother in 2012. Effectively, Sys6 cannot do
anything at all on the C21 Internet.
System 6
doesn't really natively understand networking.
Wrong. It does not natively understand *TCP/IP*. It speaks AppleTalk thru
LocalTalk, Ethernet- and Token Ring-Boards. 7.0 does
Wrong. You also need MacTCP.
> but only speaks Appletalk unaided. Wrong. There's no difference between System 6 and
up to System 7.1 in terms
of networking.
This is exactly what I meant. OT is not bloat and it works more easily
and usefully than MacTCP, which IIRC doesn't even understand DHCP. In
other words, it too is rather useless today.
--
Liam Proven ? Profile: http://lproven.livejournal.com/profile
Email: lproven at cix.co.uk ? GMail/G+/Twitter/Flickr/Facebook: lproven
MSN: lproven at hotmail.com ? Skype/AIM/Yahoo/LinkedIn: liamproven
Tel: +44 20-8685-0498 ? Cell: +44 7939-087884
7.5 has a vague notion of what TCP/IP is but
doesn't really approve of it.
:?)
By 7.6 they'd given in and accepted it but your SE/30's too old.
System 7.5 upwards had OpenTransport. It's really bloat but if you own a
fast machine, it's worth the effort. 
7:27 p.m.
Both of my SE/30's (32Mb RAM) with ethernet cards run OS 7.1 with OT. OS 6
is better for a regular 68000 SE and OS 7.6.1 or newer works best for me on
an 040 Quadra or newer.
OpenTransport is great for DHCP so you don't have to set up each machine
whith its own ip address, makes it easy for me to connect to another mac or
my win2k server running Apple shares. Browsing the current WWW on a SE/30 is
mostly a waste of time but FTP works fine.
7:40 p.m.
Both of my SE/30's (32Mb RAM) with ethernet cards
run OS 7.1 with OT. OS 6
is better for a regular 68000 SE and OS 7.6.1 or newer works best for me on
an 040 Quadra or newer.
OpenTransport is great for DHCP so you don't have to set up each machine
whith its own ip address, makes it easy for me to connect to another mac or
my win2k server running Apple shares. Browsing the current WWW on a SE/30 is
mostly a waste of time but FTP works fine.
Gopher Gopher Gopher Gopher Gopher
--
------------------------------------ personal: http://www.cameronkaiser.com/ --
Cameron Kaiser * Floodgap Systems * www.floodgap.com * ckaiser at floodgap.com
-- 1-GHz Pentium-III + Java + XSLT == 1-MHz 6502. -- Craig Bruce --------------
6 Nov
6 Nov
9:29 a.m.
On Mon, 5 Nov 2012, Cameron Kaiser wrote:
mushroom, mushroom!
g.
--
Proud owner of F-15C 80-0007
http://www.f15sim.com - The only one of its kind.
http://www.diy-cockpits.org/coll - Go Collimated or Go Home.
Some people collect things for a hobby. Geeks collect hobbies.
ScarletDME - The red hot Data Management Environment
A Multi-Value database for the masses, not the classes.
http://www.scarletdme.org - Get it _today_!
Both of my
SE/30's (32Mb RAM) with ethernet cards run OS 7.1 with OT. OS 6
is better for a regular 68000 SE and OS 7.6.1 or newer works best for me on
an 040 Quadra or newer.
OpenTransport is great for DHCP so you don't have to set up each machine
whith its own ip address, makes it easy for me to connect to another mac or
my win2k server running Apple shares. Browsing the current WWW on a SE/30 is
mostly a waste of time but FTP works fine.
Gopher Gopher Gopher Gopher Gopher 
4:03 p.m.
On 6 November 2012 14:29, geneb <geneb at deltasoft.com> wrote:
On Mon, 5 Nov 2012, Cameron Kaiser wrote:
mushroom, mushroom!
[*Chuckle*]
--
Liam Proven ? Profile: http://lproven.livejournal.com/profile
Email: lproven at cix.co.uk ? GMail/G+/Twitter/Flickr/Facebook: lproven
MSN: lproven at hotmail.com ? Skype/AIM/Yahoo/LinkedIn: liamproven
Tel: +44 20-8685-0498 ? Cell: +44 7939-087884
Both of
my SE/30's (32Mb RAM) with ethernet cards run OS 7.1 with OT. OS
6
is better for a regular 68000 SE and OS 7.6.1 or newer works best for me
on
an 040 Quadra or newer.
OpenTransport is great for DHCP so you don't have to set up each machine
whith its own ip address, makes it easy for me to connect to another mac
or
my win2k server running Apple shares. Browsing the current WWW on a SE/30
is
mostly a waste of time but FTP works fine.
Gopher Gopher Gopher Gopher Gopher
8:41 a.m.
Hi,
first, please apoplogize. I didn't and don't want to offend! It's just
the way I feel from years of practice.
Am 06.11.2012 um 01:02 schrieb Liam Proven:
The definition of a "pleasant and productive environment" heavily
depends on personal taste. :-) I'm running only a few extensions on
the SE and LC. With the addidional 192K RAM Cache, this adds up to a
800KB System in RAM, with MultiFinder, without Finder.
There are still interesting Gopher sites and FTP Mirrors with old Mac
stuff to use. And there's stil use of NewsWatcher. But, see above,
downloading from old machines is painfully slow. If you want to have
some kind of hardware-QoS to not saturate your internet connection,
it's the fun way to go. :-) Even in 2012, there's more than just http
in the Internet.
DHCP is not a must-have. I'm running DNS on my Linux-Box in my LAN, so
I don't want to have dynamic IP addresses. There's only a small DHCP-
Range, just for "guest boxes", for netbooting XTerminals or my G5 when
I need to run Disk First Aid, for a fast installation of Debian on
friend's boxes. Any static (in terms of will-not-be-moved) machine has
static IP-Adresses configured. I don't get the point why machines,
which don't change networks (like a notebook, taken from place to
place), need DHCP. Avoiding IP collisions? Is a matter of
documentation. For me, my documentation is the DNS zone files.
From CPU usage, OT *is* bloat, but as stated, on faster machines you
win throughput. On slower ones (< 040) you lose throughput *and* RAM.
The only win would be DHCP-capabilities and a more friendly config
interface. Which is not worth the effort *for me*.
To conclude, I try to use most of my old machines as old machines,
with software which was more or less up to date when they were
manufactured and/or mostly used. Most of these are unmodified in terms
of "no accelerator boards". Just to get the real retro flash. ;-) This
doesn't prevent them to be useful or productive. As stated on top,
it's a matter of taste what one calls "being productive". So, please
don't forcibly kill AppleTalk for everyone by stating it's not useful
(to you). It is but it's a question of usage scenario. Don't tell OT
is a general must-have. It just makes no sense on slow machines.
Thanks. :-)
:wq! PoC
I'd
disagree. It eats a LOT of RAM and CPU-Resources. And it takes
WAY
longer to boot. 7.5.5 would be my choice on 040-machines. Even on
my IIfx,
I'm "only" running 7.1.
I disagree in turn. Until it died of capacitor failure, I had my
Classic II with 10MB of RAM and a 16MHz 68030 on a 16-bit bus running
6.0.8, 7.0.1, 7.5.5 and 7.6.1.
With enough addons to make it a pleasant and productive environment,
System 6 was not really significantly smaller or faster than 7.x, but
it was a lot more limited. I ran 7.6.1 from preference. Its performance was just
fine, even on a
machine below the official lowest spec the OS will support. By modern
OS standards it is tiny and very simple and quick.
Maybe it's reasonably quick when it's running but booting is painfully
slow on low end machines. Especially *with* extensions to provide a
"pleasant and productive environment". ;-)
Btw, modern standards: Are we talking of retrocomputing or are we
talking to squeeze the last bits out of old machines so they can be
used like new ones? This also applies to your opinion about AppleTalk.
AT is running fine in my LAN. Several printers get their data via
AppleTalk, many old machines exchange data with AppleTalk. Broad Cast
depends on AT. Program Linking depends on AT (which I'm experimenting
with the aid of the MPW shell).
My Linux Box runs Debian 6 with a Debian-supplied Netatalk 2, so
exchange of data is like a charm between all generations of Mac OS,
from 6.0.7 up to 10.5.8.
If if comes down to machines not equipped with Ethernet or Token Ring,
there's no other choice than running AppleTalk over LocalTalk. One may
use MacTCP or Open Transport to encap IP into AppleTalk packets, so
still IP is possible (with a maximum MTU of 576 Bytes).
I have a LaserJet 4ML which is network capable via LocalTalk *only*.
How can I print from my DOS-machine on this? Running Netware 3.12 in a
VM, the print job gets to a Netware queue, rerouted via capture-
command. From there, ATPS (Apple Talk Print Server) on Netware takes
the job out of the queue and forwards it to the printer via AppleTalk.
Works like a charm!
I have a LaserJet 5100, equipped with a Token Ring network card. How
can I print from my IIfx on this? HP Token Ring equipment doesn't talk
AppleTalk. I'm printing into a Netware queue via AppleTalk. From
there, the pserver.nlm takes the job and feeds it to the printer via
IPX.
AppleTalk may be obsolete but not unusable in retro-environments. It's
still usable and is still a lot more easy than trying to make Sys 6
talk to an AFP-Server via TCP/IP Port 548. Many protocols can co-exist
on a LAN. :-) I'm even running IPv6 on Token Ring. Recent Linux
kernels can encap the packets the right way.
Yes, 6 does Appletalk, but Appletalk is really almost
no use today and
is no help in trying to get a classic Mac talking to modern machines
for file transfer or anything. You *need* TCP/IP and the latest web
browser you can find, just to have a chance of downloading anything -
I used Netscape Navigator 4.0.4 or Communicator 4.6 or thereabouts.
Debian 6 is the current stable Deb-distro, I'm running on an AMD box.
Not outdated - and still AT capable.
When it comes do download from the web, I'm either using telnet to use
wget on the linux box, or my G5 with Safari or Firefox which is way
faster than a slow CPU overloaded with IP and slow browser code. From
there I can transfer the stuff to the destination box. Via AppleTalk.
You see, the extent of "you need TCP/IP" statement depends heavily on
usage scenarios.
There also
basic client apps for some services. Eudora, Fetch, Newswatcher,
Ircle,
MacX...
Again, not worth the bother in 2012. Effectively, Sys6 cannot do
anything at all on the C21 Internet. I want to /use/ my Macs. E.g. to write on them and
then send the
result over to my modern Linux PC for cleaning up, format conversion
and submission to my editor or posting on one of my blogs or
something.
Me either. So we're basically talkin' 'bout the same. Let alone, the
way of usage seems to be different. Example: On my IIfx, I'm running
Ircle, for chatting on an internal IRC-Network with a lot of friends.
I'm running telnet to tail -f the system log of my linux box. I'm
running MacX to see what XLoad tells about the usage of my Linux box.
I'm running Newswatcher to read and answer interesting discussions in
Mac centric usenet groups. I'm running Peter Lewis' talk(d)
applications for copypasting Web-URLs from and to IRC or news
articles, to watch on the G5. This is a very IP-centric usage.
You may tell this usage as "mostly passive", which is true for most
apps. But if I need it, I'm also running PageMaker 5 or FreeHand 3.1
for documentation use or drawing cirquit diagrams. But I use them
preferred on my 7500 with a "G3"-Card @400MHz. This box still has
7.6.1 and 0,5GB of RAM - it runs like hell and the mentioned apps are
really fun to use, because there's seldom wasted waiting-for-the-
computer-to-catch-up-time.
So you contradict me and then quote the line that
agrees with your
contradiction? Huh?
Sorry. I should not try to make a senseful discussion when being
tired. Please apologize.
System 7.5
upwards had OpenTransport. It's really bloat but if you
own a
fast machine, it's worth the effort.
This is exactly what I meant. OT is not bloat and it works more easily
and usefully than MacTCP, which IIRC doesn't even understand DHCP. In
other words, it too is rather useless today.
9:23 a.m.
This is
exactly what I meant. OT is not bloat and it works more easily
and usefully than MacTCP, which IIRC doesn't even understand DHCP. In
other words, it too is rather useless today.
DHCP is not a must-have.
10:04 a.m.
Am 06.11.2012 um 15:23 schrieb Cameron Kaiser:
Good to know, I'm now alone with my opinion.
DHCP is not a
must-have.
I don't use DHCP on my internal network either except a guest range
for
people who want to connect to the secured wired backbone (but most
of the
guests just use the WiFi on the network DMZ and never see the inside
network). So MacTCP suffices. That said, I don't have any more System 6 Macs,
and the '040 I use
most
often (my clock-chipped Quadra 800) is usually in A/UX.
That's great, yes. I've a spare Q650. I'll see if I can get A/UX to
run on that, too. When I'm in the mood...
:wq! PoC
10:57 a.m.
On Tue, 6 Nov 2012, Schindler Patrik wrote:
DHCP is not a must-have. I'm running DNS on my
Linux-Box in my LAN, so I
don't want to have dynamic IP addresses. There's only a small
DHCP-Range, just for "guest boxes", for netbooting XTerminals or my G5
when I need to run Disk First Aid, for a fast installation of Debian on
friend's boxes. Any static (in terms of will-not-be-moved) machine has
static IP-Adresses configured. I don't get the point why machines, which
don't change networks (like a notebook, taken from place to place), need
DHCP. Avoiding IP collisions? Is a matter of documentation. For me, my
documentation is the DNS zone files.
DHCP may not be a "must have", but for any machine, old or new, it can
make it /much/ easier to manage a large number of systems and other
network-enabled devices, especially if you move or swap systems and
equipment out at random such as many of us do. For non-guest machines, I
don't use a dynamic range of addresses, I use DHCP to assign static IP
addresses for specific MAC addresses. When (not if) I reconfigure subnets,
gateway addresses, hostnames, etc, I don't have to modify the
configuration on dozens upon dozens of different machines. That said, ISC
DHCP's configuration has a steep learning curve, but once you get it down,
it is incredibly easy to modify or add to later (and yes, I run my own
DNS, too).
Another thing I found helpful is to run a separate test/sandbox network on
192.168.1.0/24 with parts of the range dynamically assigned. I then have
some of my local network segments configured so that any connections to
192.168.1.x are NAT'd as 192.168.1.100 on this segment. This is incredibly
useful because tons of networking gear comes preconfigured with static
192.168.1.x addresses, and in default configuration it won't talk to a
machine that doesn't have a 192.168.1.x IP address. This setup allows me
to plug something in, update/configure it, and then unplug and move it
right over to the correct subnet (where DHCP usually then takes over).
Just for the record, the machine I'm currently using for DHCP has 16
ethernet interfaces, although currently I'm only using 9 or so. My setup
isn't typical, but really anyone could do something similar and scale it
down or up as needed.
4:20 p.m.
On 6 November 2012 13:41, Schindler Patrik <poc at pocnet.net> wrote:
I didn't find it so, actually. The Classic II maxes out at 10MB of
RAM; 7.6.1 recommends a minimum of 12MB. I did not expect it to work.
It did, very well.
Then I turned off virtual memory and added RAMdoubler. ;?)
OK, worth knowing. Thanks.
There are still interesting Gopher sites and FTP Mirrors with old Mac stuff
to use. And there's stil use of NewsWatcher. But, see above, downloading
from old machines is painfully slow. If you want to have some kind of
hardware-QoS to not saturate your internet connection, it's the fun way to
go. :-) Even in 2012, there's more than just http in the Internet.
:?)
Definitely, yes. But probably more work than I would bother to do. I
am very impressed, though!
No problem. I am in much the same position. I just started a new job
-- indeed, a whole new career -- and it's very tiring.
DHCP is not a must-have. I'm running DNS on my Linux-Box in my LAN, so I
don't want to have dynamic IP addresses. There's only a small DHCP-Range,
just for "guest boxes", for netbooting XTerminals or my G5 when I need to
run Disk First Aid, for a fast installation of Debian on friend's boxes. Any
static (in terms of will-not-be-moved) machine has static IP-Adresses
configured. I don't get the point why machines, which don't change networks
(like a notebook, taken from place to place), need DHCP. Avoiding IP
collisions? Is a matter of documentation. For me, my documentation is the
DNS zone files.
No, it's not a must-have, but it makes life a /lot/ easier. I like an easy life.
Hi,
first, please apoplogize. I didn't and don't want to offend! It's just the
way I feel from years of practice.
Oh no, not at all. I am enjoying the debate!
Am 06.11.2012 um 01:02 schrieb Liam Proven:
The definition of a "pleasant and productive environment" heavily depends on
personal taste. :-) I'm running only a few extensions on the SE and LC. With
the addidional 192K RAM Cache, this adds up to a 800KB System in RAM, with
MultiFinder, without Finder.
Well, yes, that is true.
But I started out on Macs in the very late days of System 6 & moved to
System 7 within months. I am used to a clock in the menu bar, a
hierarchical Apple menu, a modular control panel, a screen-saver,
things like that. It is perfectly possible to add all this to Sys6
with some INITs and CDEVs - although it was tricky to find them when I
did it, and that was 5-6y ago now.
But once you have, I found it took as long to boot as 7.6.1 on my
Classic II and was only very slightly more responsive in use.
I must admit, I don't use any Macs slower than that. I have an LC2 but
I mean just to fix it up & try to sell it. 68030 is as low as I want
to go these days, I think. :)
Certainly, I would run the lowest system version that did what I
needed if I was on a 68000, so I agree with you there.
I'd
disagree. It eats a LOT of RAM and CPU-Resources. And it takes WAY
longer to boot. 7.5.5 would be my choice on 040-machines. Even on my
IIfx,
I'm "only" running 7.1.
I disagree in turn. Until it died of capacitor failure, I had my
Classic II with 10MB of RAM and a 16MHz 68030 on a 16-bit bus running
6.0.8, 7.0.1, 7.5.5 and 7.6.1.
With enough addons to make it a pleasant and productive environment,
System 6 was not really significantly smaller or faster than 7.x, but
it was a lot more limited. I ran 7.6.1
from preference. Its performance was just fine, even on a
machine below the official lowest spec the OS will support. By modern
OS standards it is tiny and very simple and quick.
Maybe it's reasonably quick when it's running but booting is painfully slow
on low end machines. Especially *with* extensions to provide a "pleasant and
productive environment". ;-) Btw, modern standards: Are we talking of
retrocomputing or are we talking to
squeeze the last bits out of old machines so they can be used like new ones?
Well, not the latter, no. But I want to get stuff on and off the Mac
as easily as possible, so I want it to be able to read and write PC
floppies, maybe even PC Zip disks; I want it to at least be able to
FTP stuff on and off my server, and once I have it running, so I want
the best web browser it can run, even if it is not going to be used to
surf.
I think our attitudes differ on this.
The 2 goals that I was trying to optimise my setup advice for were:
#1 run the most modern software the machine can
#2 run the software which will be easiest to get working
If you instead are optimising for performance, or for an "authentic"
1980s Mac experience, then you will want something else, yes.
This also applies to your opinion about AppleTalk. AT
is running fine in my
LAN. Several printers get their data via AppleTalk, many old machines
exchange data with AppleTalk. Broad Cast depends on AT. Program Linking
depends on AT (which I'm experimenting with the aid of the MPW shell).
My Linux Box runs Debian 6 with a Debian-supplied Netatalk 2, so exchange of
data is like a charm between all generations of Mac OS, from 6.0.7 up to
10.5.8.
Oh! Well that's good to know. I thought recent versions of Netatalk
dropped Appletalk support and only ran AFS over TCP.
If if comes down to machines not equipped with
Ethernet or Token Ring,
there's no other choice than running AppleTalk over LocalTalk. One may use
MacTCP or Open Transport to encap IP into AppleTalk packets, so still IP is
possible (with a maximum MTU of 576 Bytes).
Aha! I use an Asant? EtherSCSI. If I can't have Ethernet and TCP/IP, I
regard it as not being networked, these days.
I have a LaserJet 4ML which is network capable via
LocalTalk *only*. How can
I print from my DOS-machine on this? Running Netware 3.12 in a VM, the print
job gets to a Netware queue, rerouted via capture-command. From there, ATPS
(Apple Talk Print Server) on Netware takes the job out of the queue and
forwards it to the printer via AppleTalk. Works like a charm!
I have a LaserJet 5100, equipped with a Token Ring network card. How can I
print from my IIfx on this? HP Token Ring equipment doesn't talk AppleTalk.
I'm printing into a Netware queue via AppleTalk. From there, the pserver.nlm
takes the job and feeds it to the printer via IPX.
Cunning!
But probably more work than I would go to, I fear.
AppleTalk may be obsolete but not unusable in
retro-environments. It's still
usable and is still a lot more easy than trying to make Sys 6 talk to an
AFP-Server via TCP/IP Port 548. Many protocols can co-exist on a LAN. :-)
I'm even running IPv6 on Token Ring. Recent Linux kernels can encap the
packets the right way.
Wow!
Yes, 6 does
Appletalk, but Appletalk is really almost no use today and
is no help in trying to get a classic Mac talking to modern machines
for file transfer or anything. You *need* TCP/IP and the latest web
browser you can find, just to have a chance of downloading anything -
I used Netscape Navigator 4.0.4 or Communicator 4.6 or thereabouts.
Debian 6 is the current stable Deb-distro, I'm running on an AMD box. Not
outdated - and still AT capable. When it comes do download from the web, I'm either
using telnet to use wget
on the linux box, or my G5 with Safari or Firefox which is way faster than a
slow CPU overloaded with IP and slow browser code. From there I can transfer
the stuff to the destination box. Via AppleTalk.
OK. I like to see my old retro machines on the Web - it pleases me,
and is reason enough to wait for slow downloads. :?)
You see, the extent of "you need TCP/IP"
statement depends heavily on usage
scenarios.
Well, true. I was thinking only of my own use, I confess.
There also
basic client apps for some services. Eudora, Fetch, Newswatcher, Ircle,
MacX...
Again, not worth the bother in 2012. Effectively, Sys6 cannot do
anything at all on the C21 Internet. I want to
/use/ my Macs. E.g. to write on them and then send the
result over to my modern Linux PC for cleaning up, format conversion
and submission to my editor or posting on one of my blogs or
something.
Me either. So we're basically talkin' 'bout the same. Let alone, the way of
usage seems to be different. Example: On my IIfx, I'm running Ircle, for
chatting on an internal IRC-Network with a lot of friends. I'm running
telnet to tail -f the system log of my linux box. I'm running MacX to see
what XLoad tells about the usage of my Linux box. I'm running Newswatcher to
read and answer interesting discussions in Mac centric usenet groups. I'm
running Peter Lewis' talk(d) applications for copypasting Web-URLs from and
to IRC or news articles, to watch on the G5. This is a very IP-centric
usage. You may tell this usage as "mostly passive",
which is true for most apps.
But if I need it, I'm also running PageMaker 5 or FreeHand 3.1 for
documentation use or drawing cirquit diagrams. But I use them preferred on
my 7500 with a "G3"-Card @400MHz. This box still has 7.6.1 and 0,5GB of RAM
- it runs like hell and the mentioned apps are really fun to use, because
there's seldom wasted waiting-for-the-computer-to-catch-up-time.
[Nod]
So you
contradict me and then quote the line that agrees with your
contradiction? Huh?
Sorry. I should not try to make a senseful discussion when being tired.
Please apologize. System 7.5 upwards had OpenTransport. It's really
bloat but if you own a
fast machine, it's worth the effort.
This is exactly what I meant. OT is not bloat and it works more easily
and usefully than MacTCP, which IIRC doesn't even understand DHCP. In
other words, it too is rather useless today. From CPU usage, OT *is* bloat, but as stated, on
faster machines you win
throughput. On slower ones (< 040) you lose throughput *and* RAM. The only
win would be DHCP-capabilities and a more friendly config interface. Which
is not worth the effort *for me*.
To conclude, I try to use most of my old machines as old machines, with
software which was more or less up to date when they were manufactured
and/or mostly used. Most of these are unmodified in terms of "no accelerator
boards". Just to get the real retro flash. ;-) This doesn't prevent them to
be useful or productive. As stated on top, it's a matter of taste what one
calls "being productive". So, please don't forcibly kill AppleTalk for
everyone by stating it's not useful (to you). It is but it's a question of
usage scenario. Don't tell OT is a general must-have. It just makes no sense
on slow machines.
OK.
--
Liam Proven ? Profile: http://lproven.livejournal.com/profile
Email: lproven at cix.co.uk ? GMail/G+/Twitter/Flickr/Facebook: lproven
MSN: lproven at hotmail.com ? Skype/AIM/Yahoo/LinkedIn: liamproven
Tel: +44 20-8685-0498 ? Cell: +44 7939-087884
4:54 p.m.
On Nov 6, 2012, at 4:20 PM, Liam Proven wrote:
Well, yes, that is true.
But I started out on Macs in the very late days of System 6 & moved to
System 7 within months. I am used to a clock in the menu bar, a
hierarchical Apple menu, a modular control panel, a screen-saver,
things like that. It is perfectly possible to add all this to Sys6
with some INITs and CDEVs - although it was tricky to find them when I
did it, and that was 5-6y ago now.
Ha! Screen savers. I remember After Dark; it was one of the most
reliable ways to make your Mac unreliable. Some of the Now utils
(clock in the menu bar, drop-down Apple Menu items) were quite
handy before they were absorbed into the OS, and didn't really
take all that many resources.
I didn't find it so, actually. The Classic II maxes out at 10MB of
RAM; 7.6.1 recommends a minimum of 12MB. I did not expect it to work.
It did, very well.
I think 7.6 is the absolute best OS to run on a PowerPC. I haven't
run it on an '040 any time recently, though I imagine it would be
acceptable, but I see very few downsides vs. running 7.5.x on a 68K
machine.
For what it's worth, I feel like the Mac OS peaked at 7.6, and it's
all been (non-monotonically) downhill from there. I feel like there
was another local maximum at 10.4 (and another somewhat lower one
at 10.6), but it's kind of apples vs. oranges at that point.
You may find running Netatalk 2.x on your server alongside FTP to be
a MUCH more pleasant way to transfer files. FTP works, more or less,
but it trashes resource forks and just isn't as nice to work with,
even with a nice client like Fetch.
I can't even think about running a web browser on pre-OSX Macs at
this point, though Classilla is tempting (though not available for
System 7, right?).
3.x did, yes, but 2.2.x is still maintained until they finally
decide to drop support for it. It's still readily available
Ha! I ran one of those on my SE a long time ago (I managed to
find an SE Ethernet card a while back, though, which solved
the problem rather better). I have an Asant? Ethernet-to-
LocalTalk bridge that someone gave me with a LocalTalk-only
printer, but it's not entirely satisfactory (in particular,
it's weird about enumerating the LocalTalk side). I'm almost
of a mind to build a bridge of my own with a small Ethernet-
capable micro and an external 8530, but I keep making my
queue longer with other projects. :-\
It's subjective, of course; DHCP is great (and some things don't
work so well without it; for example, I can't browse my Windows
machines' SMB shares if I give them static IPs for some reason),
but there are a lot of things I'd rather run static. Old
machines fall into that category, because it also makes it a lot
easier to do a tcpdump to see what they're trying to do when
they're not working. :-)
- Dave
With enough addons to make it a pleasant and
productive environment,
System 6 was not really significantly smaller or faster than 7.x, but
it was a lot more limited.
The definition of a "pleasant and productive environment" heavily depends on
personal taste. :-) I'm running only a few extensions on the SE and LC. With
the addidional 192K RAM Cache, this adds up to a 800KB System in RAM, with
MultiFinder, without Finder. But once you have, I found it took as long to boot as
7.6.1 on my
Classic II and was only very slightly more responsive in use.
I found 7.6 to be almost unbearably slow on my LCIII (which isn't
actually a bad machine for an '030), whereas 7.5.3 ran quite
comfortably faster. That was with 20 MB RAM, which is rather
much for either; forget running 7.6 on 4 MB.
I must admit, I don't use any Macs slower than
that. I have an LC2 but
I mean just to fix it up & try to sell it. 68030 is as low as I want
to go these days, I think. :)
Well, and the LCII was a dog. If you do a side-by-side comparison
of the board layout with the original LC, you'll see that it's
nearly identical (down to the crippling 16-bit bus) except that the
'020 has been replaced with an '030. The LCIII was what that
machine SHOULD have been.
Certainly, I would run the lowest system version that
did what I
needed if I was on a 68000, so I agree with you there.
System 7 works on my SE (4 MB RAM) for a number of things, including
quite a few games, but it doesn't leave a lot of room for things like
MacTCP. I have a switch to choose between 7.0.1 and 6.0.8 (if you
don't have it already, System Switcher is a REALLY handy util).
I ran 7.6.1 from preference. Its performance was just
fine, even on a
machine below the official lowest spec the OS will support. By modern
OS standards it is tiny and very simple and quick.
Maybe it's reasonably quick when it's running but booting is painfully slow
on low end machines. Especially *with* extensions to provide a "pleasant and
productive environment". ;-) Btw, modern
standards: Are we talking of retrocomputing or are we talking to
squeeze the last bits out of old machines so they can be used like new ones?
Well, not the latter, no. But I want to get stuff on and off the Mac
as easily as possible, so I want it to be able to read and write PC
floppies, maybe even PC Zip disks; I want it to at least be able to
FTP stuff on and off my server, and once I have it running, so I want
the best web browser it can run, even if it is not going to be used to
surf. I think our attitudes differ on this.
The 2 goals that I was trying to optimise my setup advice for were:
#1 run the most modern software the machine can
#2 run the software which will be easiest to get working
#1 wasn't the best idea even when the machines were in their primes.
If I had the desk space to run my 7300 as an everyday machine (and
were willing to put up with the whine of its absurdly loud Barracuda
next to me all day), I think I'd demote it from the 9.1 I'd upgraded
to by the time I stopped using it to somewhere around 8.1 (with 7.6
as an option). I just feel robbed of performance (and stability)
with the newest stuff that will run on it. Ditto goes for OS X
machines; my MDD G4 runs twice as fast with the first version of
Tiger on it as it does with the last version, which is appalling.
This also
applies to your opinion about AppleTalk. AT is running fine in my
LAN. Several printers get their data via AppleTalk, many old machines
exchange data with AppleTalk. Broad Cast depends on AT. Program Linking
depends on AT (which I'm experimenting with the aid of the MPW shell).
My Linux Box runs Debian 6 with a Debian-supplied Netatalk 2, so exchange of
data is like a charm between all generations of Mac OS, from 6.0.7 up to
10.5.8.
Oh! Well that's good to know. I thought recent versions of Netatalk
dropped Appletalk support and only ran AFS over TCP. from most package managers.
If if comes
down to machines not equipped with Ethernet or Token Ring,
there's no other choice than running AppleTalk over LocalTalk. One may use
MacTCP or Open Transport to encap IP into AppleTalk packets, so still IP is
possible (with a maximum MTU of 576 Bytes).
Aha! I use an Asant? EtherSCSI. If I can't have Ethernet and TCP/IP, I
regard it as not being networked, these days. DHCP is not a
must-have. I'm running DNS on my Linux-Box in my LAN, so I
don't want to have dynamic IP addresses. There's only a small DHCP-Range,
just for "guest boxes", for netbooting XTerminals or my G5 when I need to
run Disk First Aid, for a fast installation of Debian on friend's boxes. Any
static (in terms of will-not-be-moved) machine has static IP-Adresses
configured. I don't get the point why machines, which don't change networks
(like a notebook, taken from place to place), need DHCP. Avoiding IP
collisions? Is a matter of documentation. For me, my documentation is the
DNS zone files.
No, it's not a must-have, but it makes life a /lot/ easier. I like an easy life.
5:03 p.m.
I can't even think about running a web browser on
pre-OSX Macs at
this point, though Classilla is tempting (though not available for
System 7, right?).
No, because it relies on the Unicode conversion libraries that weren't
introduced until Mac OS 8.5. However, it will run on 8.5+ (8.6 or 9.1+
strongly advised).
OS 9, and to a lesser extent 8.6/8.1, are definitely less efficient than
System 7. However, I'm so accustomed to their niceties that I run 9.1
even on machines capable of running 7, particularly if it has a G3. If I
were still using the stock processor, I'd probably reconsider, but almost
none of my regular-use classic Power Macs use a 60x processor anymore.
And, of course, with the New World Macs you have really no choice but
OS 8 and up.
--
------------------------------------ personal: http://www.cameronkaiser.com/ --
Cameron Kaiser * Floodgap Systems * www.floodgap.com * ckaiser at floodgap.com
-- We make up horrors to help us cope with the real ones. -- Stephen King -----
5:20 p.m.
On 6 November 2012 22:03, Cameron Kaiser <spectre at floodgap.com> wrote:
Concur.
--
Liam Proven ? Profile: http://lproven.livejournal.com/profile
Email: lproven at cix.co.uk ? GMail/G+/Twitter/Flickr/Facebook: lproven
MSN: lproven at hotmail.com ? Skype/AIM/Yahoo/LinkedIn: liamproven
Tel: +44 20-8685-0498 ? Cell: +44 7939-087884
I can't
even think about running a web browser on pre-OSX Macs at
this point, though Classilla is tempting (though not available for
System 7, right?).
No, because it relies on the Unicode conversion libraries that weren't
introduced until Mac OS 8.5. However, it will run on 8.5+ (8.6 or 9.1+
strongly advised).
OS 9, and to a lesser extent 8.6/8.1, are definitely less efficient than
System 7. However, I'm so accustomed to their niceties that I run 9.1
even on machines capable of running 7, particularly if it has a G3. 
5:09 p.m.
On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 4:54 PM, David Riley <fraveydank at gmail.com> wrote:
I think 7.6 is the absolute best OS to run on a
PowerPC. I haven't
run it on an '040 any time recently, though I imagine it would be
acceptable, but I see very few downsides vs. running 7.5.x on a 68K
machine.
In the mid-1990, I ran a bunch of Macs at work. Our low-end was
the IIci, our high end was a Quadra 950 and one PowerMac 8100av.
All had Ethernet adapters and connected to external resources via
TCP/IP (we used Apple protocols for locally sharing files and hitting
printers). ISTR running 7.5.1 on the IIci boxes. I don't recall what
was on the PowerMac (it was purchased some time in 1994 and
probably not upgraded after that, if that helps).
For what it's worth, I feel like the Mac OS peaked
at 7.6, and it's
all been (non-monotonically) downhill from there. I feel like there
was another local maximum at 10.4 (and another somewhat lower one
at 10.6), but it's kind of apples vs. oranges at that point.
Interesting observation. I stopped working with Macs during the 8.x
and 9.x eras and only picked them up again around 10.2 or so. I've
noodled around for a small number of hours on 9.something and I
have a *lot* of time on 10.3 and 10.4.
What was so bad about 8.x or 9.x?
-ethan
5:19 p.m.
On 6 November 2012 21:54, David Riley <fraveydank at gmail.com> wrote:
Mileage varying a /lot/ here. Until I flogged it a couple of months
ago for a very healthy ?45 or so, I ran 8.1 on mine. I found that just
fine.
[Nod]
I just attach multiple SCSI drives. :?) It's not like you need very big ones!
I didn't find it so, actually. The Classic II maxes out at 10MB of
RAM; 7.6.1 recommends a minimum of 12MB. I did not expect it to work.
It did, very well.
I think 7.6 is the absolute best OS to run on a PowerPC. I haven't
run it on an '040 any time recently, though I imagine it would be
acceptable, but I see very few downsides vs. running 7.5.x on a 68K
machine.
Could not disagree more. I run/ran my PPCs on 9.1 or 9.2.2 if they can
take it, as a rule.
You may find running Netatalk 2.x on your server alongside FTP to be
a MUCH more pleasant way to transfer files.
That'll be tricky, it runs Windows Server 2008. :?D
3.x did, yes, but 2.2.x is still maintained until they finally
decide to drop support for it. It's still readily available
from most package managers.
OIC. So I wasn't totally wrong. That's good. :?)
Ha! I ran one of those on my SE a long time ago (I managed to
find an SE Ethernet card a while back, though, which solved
the problem rather better). I have an Asant? Ethernet-to-
LocalTalk bridge that someone gave me with a LocalTalk-only
printer, but it's not entirely satisfactory (in particular,
it's weird about enumerating the LocalTalk side). I'm almost
of a mind to build a bridge of my own with a small Ethernet-
capable micro and an external 8530, but I keep making my
queue longer with other projects. :-\
If I can persuade or bribe Tony into fixing my SE/30, I shall be
looking for an Ethernet board. And an external-monitor adaptor, lots
of RAM and AU/X. ;?)
It's subjective, of course; DHCP is great (and some things don't
work so well without it; for example, I can't browse my Windows
machines' SMB shares if I give them static IPs for some reason),
but there are a lot of things I'd rather run static. Old
machines fall into that category, because it also makes it a lot
easier to do a tcpdump to see what they're trying to do when
they're not working. :-)
Life's too short for that sort of thing, for me. I am only doing this
for fun. I find it an excellent, generally-applicable rule of thumb
that anything involving hexadecimal is not fun.
--
Liam Proven ? Profile: http://lproven.livejournal.com/profile
Email: lproven at cix.co.uk ? GMail/G+/Twitter/Flickr/Facebook: lproven
MSN: lproven at hotmail.com ? Skype/AIM/Yahoo/LinkedIn: liamproven
Tel: +44 20-8685-0498 ? Cell: +44 7939-087884
On Nov 6, 2012, at 4:20 PM, Liam Proven wrote:
Well, yes, that is true.
But I started out on Macs in the very late days of System 6 & moved to
System 7 within months. I am used to a clock in the menu bar, a
hierarchical Apple menu, a modular control panel, a screen-saver,
things like that. It is perfectly possible to add all this to Sys6
with some INITs and CDEVs - although it was tricky to find them when I
did it, and that was 5-6y ago now.
Ha! Screen savers. I remember After Dark; it was one of the most
reliable ways to make your Mac unreliable.
Interesting. Never noticed that, back in the day, and it was so
popular it was near-ubiquitous.
With enough addons to make it a pleasant and
productive environment,
System 6 was not really significantly smaller or faster than 7.x, but
it was a lot more limited.
The definition of a "pleasant and productive environment" heavily depends on
personal taste. :-) I'm running only a few extensions on the SE and LC. With
the addidional 192K RAM Cache, this adds up to a 800KB System in RAM, with
MultiFinder, without Finder. Some of the Now utils
(clock in the menu bar, drop-down Apple Menu items) were quite
handy before they were absorbed into the OS, and didn't really
take all that many resources.
I forget whose or what I used. I don't think they were anything to do
with NUTD, if that's the Now you meant?
But once you
have, I found it took as long to boot as 7.6.1 on my
Classic II and was only very slightly more responsive in use.
I found 7.6 to be almost unbearably slow on my LCIII (which isn't
actually a bad machine for an '030), whereas 7.5.3 ran quite
comfortably faster. That was with 20 MB RAM, which is rather
much for either; forget running 7.6 on 4 MB. I must admit,
I don't use any Macs slower than that. I have an LC2 but
I mean just to fix it up & try to sell it. 68030 is as low as I want
to go these days, I think. :)
Well, and the LCII was a dog. If you do a side-by-side comparison
of the board layout with the original LC, you'll see that it's
nearly identical (down to the crippling 16-bit bus) except that the
'020 has been replaced with an '030. The LCIII was what that
machine SHOULD have been. Certainly, I
would run the lowest system version that did what I
needed if I was on a 68000, so I agree with you there.
System 7 works on my SE (4 MB RAM) for a number of things, including
quite a few games, but it doesn't leave a lot of room for things like
MacTCP. I have a switch to choose between 7.0.1 and 6.0.8 (if you
don't have it already, System Switcher is a REALLY handy util). I ran 7.6.1
from preference. Its performance was just fine, even on a
machine below the official lowest spec the OS will support. By modern
OS standards it is tiny and very simple and quick.
Maybe it's reasonably quick when it's running but booting is painfully slow
on low end machines. Especially *with* extensions to provide a "pleasant and
productive environment". ;-) For what it's worth, I feel like the Mac OS peaked
at 7.6, and it's
all been (non-monotonically) downhill from there.
Again, I disagree. 7.6 is the best OS for 68030s, but for 68040s I
much value the facilities of 8.1 - pop-up folders, drawers (damned
near essential on smaller screens), HFS+ for bigger disks and so on. I
also think the 8.1 Finder looks better.
I feel like there
was another local maximum at 10.4 (and another somewhat lower one
at 10.6), but it's kind of apples vs. oranges at that point.
I miss Classic mode, but I find the facilities of Leopard - Spaces,
for instance - so very useful that I have pretty much abandoned Tiger
now.
Concur about 10.6, though.
Btw, modern standards: Are we talking of
retrocomputing or are we talking to
squeeze the last bits out of old machines so they can be used like new ones?
Well, not the latter, no. But I want to get stuff on and off the Mac
as easily as possible, so I want it to be able to read and write PC
floppies, maybe even PC Zip disks; I want it to at least be able to
FTP stuff on and off my server, and once I have it running, so I want
the best web browser it can run, even if it is not going to be used to
surf. FTP works, more or less,
but it trashes resource forks and just isn't as nice to work with,
even with a nice client like Fetch.
I move binaries around inside Zips or Sits. For text files or Word
docs, it doesn't matter too much.
I can't even think about running a web browser on
pre-OSX Macs at
this point, though Classilla is tempting (though not available for
System 7, right?).
Whereas IKWYM in general terms, I actually liked MacOS 9. Anything
that can run 8.6 can run 9.1 acceptably and I find it preferable.
I think our attitudes differ on this.
The 2 goals that I was trying to optimise my setup advice for were:
#1 run the most modern software the machine can
#2 run the software which will be easiest to get working
#1 wasn't the best idea even when the machines were in their primes.
If I had the desk space to run my 7300 as an everyday machine (and
were willing to put up with the whine of its absurdly loud Barracuda
next to me all day), I think I'd demote it from the 9.1 I'd upgraded
to by the time I stopped using it to somewhere around 8.1 (with 7.6
as an option). I just feel robbed of performance (and stability)
with the newest stuff that will run on it. Ditto goes for OS X
machines; my MDD G4 runs twice as fast with the first version of
Tiger on it as it does with the last version, which is appalling.
As in, 10.4.0 versus 10.4.11? I noticed no difference. Never really
have with point-releases.
10.4 feels slower than 10.3 & I am toying with downgrading my B&W
G3-with-a-G4-in-it to Panther, just for nostalgia. I have no need for
Dashboard and I don't /really/ need Spotlight.
10.5 might be slower than 10.4 but the extra facilities are worth it.
This also applies to your opinion about AppleTalk. AT
is running fine in my
LAN. Several printers get their data via AppleTalk, many old machines
exchange data with AppleTalk. Broad Cast depends on AT. Program Linking
depends on AT (which I'm experimenting with the aid of the MPW shell).
My Linux Box runs Debian 6 with a Debian-supplied Netatalk 2, so exchange of
data is like a charm between all generations of Mac OS, from 6.0.7 up to
10.5.8.
Oh! Well that's good to know. I thought recent versions of Netatalk
dropped Appletalk support and only ran AFS over TCP. If if comes down to machines not equipped with
Ethernet or Token Ring,
there's no other choice than running AppleTalk over LocalTalk. One may use
MacTCP or Open Transport to encap IP into AppleTalk packets, so still IP is
possible (with a maximum MTU of 576 Bytes).
Aha! I use an Asant? EtherSCSI. If I can't have Ethernet and TCP/IP, I
regard it as not being networked, these days. DHCP is not a must-have. I'm running DNS on my
Linux-Box in my LAN, so I
don't want to have dynamic IP addresses. There's only a small DHCP-Range,
just for "guest boxes", for netbooting XTerminals or my G5 when I need to
run Disk First Aid, for a fast installation of Debian on friend's boxes. Any
static (in terms of will-not-be-moved) machine has static IP-Adresses
configured. I don't get the point why machines, which don't change networks
(like a notebook, taken from place to place), need DHCP. Avoiding IP
collisions? Is a matter of documentation. For me, my documentation is the
DNS zone files.
No, it's not a must-have, but it makes life a /lot/ easier. I like an easy life.
5:59 p.m.
On Nov 6, 2012, at 5:19 PM, Liam Proven wrote:
Same company. They had a utilities package which I think Apple
ended up buying outright to do all the things you take for granted
in later versions of System 7 and further (like the menu bar
clock, or hierarchical menus in the Apple Menu).
Handy if you've got them. I don't, and I don't have the money to go
about grabbing more, so System Switcher is quite nice (also makes
for a nice setup on an all-in-one like the SE).
It's a matter of personal preference, I imagine.
I would love to have 7.6 with HFS+. I never really cared for the
new look of OS 8; I liked the crisp look of 7.x. Not everyone is
likely to agree, obviously, and I wouldn't assert that it was the
*only* way to go (unless you were me, which you're not).
Cameron also pointed out the improved Unicode support in later
versions, which I had forgotten. That can be rather important,
depending on what you're trying to do.
Again, personal preference; I never had a use for Expos? or Spaces,
the equivalent of which had been available to me for years under
Linux. I'm a corner case in a lot of ways, though; I always used
command-tab and ran everything at full screen.
Ah, well, there's that. There used to be an AppleTalk package for
Windows, and it might still be maintained, but it was commercial
and expensive.
Sure. It's nice to not have to (for example, when doing NetBSD
kernel development for my LCIII, I have the LCIII Finder attach
to an AppleShare partition (hosted on my cross-compile Linux
machine) on boot and load the kernel from there. Nothing to do
with resource forks, but it cuts quite a bit of overhead from
test-swear-compile-reboot cycle.
Gradually, no. Try 'em side-by-side and you might notice.
OIC. So I wasn't totally wrong. That's good. :?)
I was sad to see it go, but Frank Lahm pointed out that the
last maintainers that understood AppleTalk were long-gone
The Ethernet cards are easy enough to get, at least over
here. The SE/30 shared a PDS with the IIsi, so they're
a little more common.
- Dave
Some of the
Now utils
(clock in the menu bar, drop-down Apple Menu items) were quite
handy before they were absorbed into the OS, and didn't really
take all that many resources.
I forget whose or what I used. I don't think they were anything to do
with NUTD, if that's the Now you meant? System 7 works
on my SE (4 MB RAM) for a number of things, including
quite a few games, but it doesn't leave a lot of room for things like
MacTCP. I have a switch to choose between 7.0.1 and 6.0.8 (if you
don't have it already, System Switcher is a REALLY handy util).
I just attach multiple SCSI drives. :?) It's not like you need very big ones! I think 7.6 is
the absolute best OS to run on a PowerPC. I haven't
run it on an '040 any time recently, though I imagine it would be
acceptable, but I see very few downsides vs. running 7.5.x on a 68K
machine.
Could not disagree more. I run/ran my PPCs on 9.1 or 9.2.2 if they can
take it, as a rule. For what
it's worth, I feel like the Mac OS peaked at 7.6, and it's
all been (non-monotonically) downhill from there.
Again, I disagree. 7.6 is the best OS for 68030s, but for 68040s I
much value the facilities of 8.1 - pop-up folders, drawers (damned
near essential on smaller screens), HFS+ for bigger disks and so on. I
also think the 8.1 Finder looks better. I feel like
there
was another local maximum at 10.4 (and another somewhat lower one
at 10.6), but it's kind of apples vs. oranges at that point.
I miss Classic mode, but I find the facilities of Leopard - Spaces,
for instance - so very useful that I have pretty much abandoned Tiger
now. You may find
running Netatalk 2.x on your server alongside FTP to be
a MUCH more pleasant way to transfer files.
That'll be tricky, it runs Windows Server 2008. :?D FTP works,
more or less,
but it trashes resource forks and just isn't as nice to work with,
even with a nice client like Fetch.
I move binaries around inside Zips or Sits. For text files or Word
docs, it doesn't matter too much. Ditto goes for
OS X
machines; my MDD G4 runs twice as fast with the first version of
Tiger on it as it does with the last version, which is appalling.
As in, 10.4.0 versus 10.4.11? I noticed no difference. Never really
have with point-releases. Oh! Well that's good to know. I thought recent
versions of Netatalk
dropped Appletalk support and only ran AFS over TCP.
3.x did, yes, but 2.2.x is still maintained until they finally
decide to drop support for it. It's still readily available
from most package managers. from the project and no one had stepped up to take
their
place, and the demand just wasn't there. I'm inclined to
believe him, since I fixed a bug in the NetBSD AppleTalk
stack that kept it from working that had been there for at
least a year without anyone noticing.
Ha! I ran one
of those on my SE a long time ago (I managed to
find an SE Ethernet card a while back, though, which solved
the problem rather better). I have an Asant? Ethernet-to-
LocalTalk bridge that someone gave me with a LocalTalk-only
printer, but it's not entirely satisfactory (in particular,
it's weird about enumerating the LocalTalk side). I'm almost
of a mind to build a bridge of my own with a small Ethernet-
capable micro and an external 8530, but I keep making my
queue longer with other projects. :-\
If I can persuade or bribe Tony into fixing my SE/30, I shall be
looking for an Ethernet board. And an external-monitor adaptor, lots
of RAM and AU/X. ;?)
6:36 p.m.
On 6 November 2012 22:59, David Riley <fraveydank at gmail.com> wrote:
Handy if you've got them. I don't, and I don't have the money to go
about grabbing more, so System Switcher is quite nice (also makes
for a nice setup on an all-in-one like the SE).
Blimey. I'd offer to send you a few for nothing, but the cost of
shipping would be around $10-$12, I think.
It's a matter of personal preference, I imagine.
[Nod]
I would love to have 7.6 with HFS+. I never really cared for the
new look of OS 8; I liked the crisp look of 7.x. Not everyone is
likely to agree, obviously, and I wouldn't assert that it was the
*only* way to go (unless you were me, which you're not).
I see appeal on both sides, but I actually liked and used the new
features in 8. On a mono screen, though, 7 or 6 look better.
Again, personal preference; I never had a use for Expos? or Spaces,
the equivalent of which had been available to me for years under
Linux. I'm a corner case in a lot of ways, though; I always used
command-tab and ran everything at full screen.
I used 3rd party vdesktop tools when I ran Tiger on a daily basis, but
the integration in Leopard is much superior. Expos? is nice but I
almost never need it - nor Dashboard. Spotlight I only use as an app
launcher.
Ah, well, there's that. There used to be an AppleTalk package for
Windows, and it might still be maintained, but it was commercial
and expensive.
It was built in to NT Server 3/4 and very easy. It was a pig to get
working on 2000 Server, where it was buried away, and was removed in
2003, IIRC.
Damned shame.
Sure. It's nice to not have to (for example, when doing NetBSD
kernel development for my LCIII, I have the LCIII Finder attach
to an AppleShare partition (hosted on my cross-compile Linux
machine) on boot and load the kernel from there. Nothing to do
with resource forks, but it cuts quite a bit of overhead from
test-swear-compile-reboot cycle.
OIC. Yes, definite score there.
Gradually, no. Try 'em side-by-side and you might notice.
Fair point.
The bugs and insecurities would worry me, though.
OIC. So I wasn't totally wrong. That's good. :?)
I was sad to see it go, but Frank Lahm pointed out that the
last maintainers that understood AppleTalk were long-gone
from the project and no one had stepped up to take their
place, and the demand just wasn't there. I'm inclined to
believe him, since I fixed a bug in the NetBSD AppleTalk
stack that kept it from working that had been there for at
least a year without anyone noticing.
DECnet is similarly neglected, I fear. :?(
The Ethernet cards are easy enough to get, at least over
here. The SE/30 shared a PDS with the IIsi, so they're
a little more common.
I don't think they're common at all over here, but shipping would not
be too bad.
Shame it would cost a lot for a IIgs - I always wanted one of those
On Nov 6, 2012, at 5:19 PM, Liam Proven wrote:
Same company. They had a utilities package which I think Apple
ended up buying outright to do all the things you take for granted
in later versions of System 7 and further (like the menu bar
clock, or hierarchical menus in the Apple Menu).
Interesting - ta! I did not know that.
Some of
the Now utils
(clock in the menu bar, drop-down Apple Menu items) were quite
handy before they were absorbed into the OS, and didn't really
take all that many resources.
I forget whose or what I used. I don't think they were anything to do
with NUTD, if that's the Now you meant? System 7 works on my SE (4 MB RAM) for a number of
things, including
quite a few games, but it doesn't leave a lot of room for things like
MacTCP. I have a switch to choose between 7.0.1 and 6.0.8 (if you
don't have it already, System Switcher is a REALLY handy util).
I just attach multiple SCSI drives. :?) It's not like you need very big ones! I think 7.6 is the absolute best OS to run on a
PowerPC. I haven't
run it on an '040 any time recently, though I imagine it would be
acceptable, but I see very few downsides vs. running 7.5.x on a 68K
machine.
Could not disagree more. I run/ran my PPCs on 9.1 or 9.2.2 if they can
take it, as a rule. For what it's worth, I feel like the Mac OS peaked
at 7.6, and it's
all been (non-monotonically) downhill from there.
Again, I disagree. 7.6 is the best OS for 68030s, but for 68040s I
much value the facilities of 8.1 - pop-up folders, drawers (damned
near essential on smaller screens), HFS+ for bigger disks and so on. I
also think the 8.1 Finder looks better. Cameron also pointed out the improved Unicode support
in later
versions, which I had forgotten. That can be rather important,
depending on what you're trying to do.
I can see it would matter, but I was never bothered myself.
I feel like there
was another local maximum at 10.4 (and another somewhat lower one
at 10.6), but it's kind of apples vs. oranges at that point.
I miss Classic mode, but I find the facilities of Leopard - Spaces,
for instance - so very useful that I have pretty much abandoned Tiger
now. You may find running Netatalk 2.x on your server
alongside FTP to be
a MUCH more pleasant way to transfer files.
That'll be tricky, it runs Windows Server 2008. :?D FTP works, more or less,
but it trashes resource forks and just isn't as nice to work with,
even with a nice client like Fetch.
I move binaries around inside Zips or Sits. For text files or Word
docs, it doesn't matter too much. Ditto goes for OS X
machines; my MDD G4 runs twice as fast with the first version of
Tiger on it as it does with the last version, which is appalling.
As in, 10.4.0 versus 10.4.11? I noticed no difference. Never really
have with point-releases. Oh! Well
that's good to know. I thought recent versions of Netatalk
dropped Appletalk support and only ran AFS over TCP.
3.x did, yes, but 2.2.x is still maintained until they finally
decide to drop support for it. It's still readily available
from most package managers. Ha! I ran one of those on my SE a long time ago (I
managed to
find an SE Ethernet card a while back, though, which solved
the problem rather better). I have an Asant? Ethernet-to-
LocalTalk bridge that someone gave me with a LocalTalk-only
printer, but it's not entirely satisfactory (in particular,
it's weird about enumerating the LocalTalk side). I'm almost
of a mind to build a bridge of my own with a small Ethernet-
capable micro and an external 8530, but I keep making my
queue longer with other projects. :-\
If I can persuade or bribe Tony into fixing my SE/30, I shall be
looking for an Ethernet board. And an external-monitor adaptor, lots
of RAM and AU/X. ;?) from the day they were launched. Still do.
--
Liam Proven ? Profile: http://lproven.livejournal.com/profile
Email: lproven at cix.co.uk ? GMail/G+/Twitter/Flickr/Facebook: lproven
MSN: lproven at hotmail.com ? Skype/AIM/Yahoo/LinkedIn: liamproven
Tel: +44 20-8685-0498 ? Cell: +44 7939-087884
7:12 p.m.
On 11/06/2012 06:36 PM, Liam Proven wrote:
Works great here, under current Linux!
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire, AK4HZ
New Kensington, PA
I was sad to
see it go, but Frank Lahm pointed out that the
last maintainers that understood AppleTalk were long-gone
from the project and no one had stepped up to take their
place, and the demand just wasn't there. I'm inclined to
believe him, since I fixed a bug in the NetBSD AppleTalk
stack that kept it from working that had been there for at
least a year without anyone noticing.
DECnet is similarly neglected, I fear. :?(
8:13 p.m.
Am 06.11.2012 um 23:19 schrieb Liam Proven:
I also think the 8.1 Finder looks better.
This change in look was my point to stay with 7.6.1 on my 7500 until
there would be something worth the change. I think, the window borders
take too much space on the screen. That was my main reason to avoid
anything >= 8. As David pointed out, I just like the crisp look. :-)
That'll be tricky, it runs Windows Server 2008.
:?D
You can use Hyper-V to run a Linux-guest ;-)
10.4 feels slower than 10.3 & I am toying with
downgrading my B&W
G3-with-a-G4-in-it to Panther, just for nostalgia. I have no need for
Dashboard and I don't /really/ need Spotlight.
10.5 might be slower than 10.4 but the extra facilities are worth it.
I consider doing the same with my iBook G4, just to have classic back
(and again something portable) when I finish reassembling. (It had
issues with hangs. It turned out that running with an external FW-disk
was completely okay. The internal disk also was ok, but booting from
CD-ROM also failed. So, I suspict it was the IDE-controller. Since the
book is not really usable with external disks only, I risked losing it
completely by extracting the board and baking it for three minutes at
250 degrees Celsius. Just enough to make the sure the solder will get
liquid. With that, I grilled the onboard-RAM. So I disabled it with a
sharp knife, cutting the VCC-Pins from the first chip. It worked,
booting the internal disk is possible again! Yeeha! Didn't take time
to reassemble completely, yet.)
If I can persuade or bribe Tony into fixing my SE/30,
I shall be
looking for an Ethernet board. And an external-monitor adaptor, lots
of RAM and AU/X. ;?)
That could be hard to find. The SE/30 has only one slot. It should be
daisy-chainable but next problem could be space. And, I can't see how
to mount ethernet- and monitor ports on the rear.
:wq! PoC
7 Nov
7 Nov
8:23 a.m.
On 7 November 2012 01:13, Schindler Patrik <poc at pocnet.net> wrote:
Nope. Old P4, no Intel VT. Also, only 1GB of RAM. ;?D
O_o
You are more intrepid than I!
I have heard that it is possible, although not easy... No details, though.
The Micron (?) board that also enables greyscale display on the
internal 9" monitor would be lovely to have. There is/was an effort to
reverse-engineer and reimplement it, but I don't think it got
anywhere...
--
Liam Proven ? Profile: http://lproven.livejournal.com/profile
Email: lproven at cix.co.uk ? GMail/G+/Twitter/Flickr/Facebook: lproven
MSN: lproven at hotmail.com ? Skype/AIM/Yahoo/LinkedIn: liamproven
Tel: +44 20-8685-0498 ? Cell: +44 7939-087884
Am 06.11.2012 um 23:19 schrieb Liam Proven:
I thought the borders were all the same size?
I remember when Blue Box appeared in the OS X betas. Many people had
said that the new window decorations took too much space, but when you
could inter-mix them with OS9 windows, you could see that they were
actually exactly the same size.
I also think the 8.1 Finder looks better.
This change in look was my point to stay with 7.6.1 on my 7500 until there
would be something worth the change. I think, the window borders take too
much space on the screen. That was my main reason to avoid anything >= 8. As
David pointed out, I just like the crisp look. :-) That'll be
tricky, it runs Windows Server 2008. :?D
You can use Hyper-V to run a Linux-guest ;-) 10.4 feels
slower than 10.3 & I am toying with downgrading my B&W
G3-with-a-G4-in-it to Panther, just for nostalgia. I have no need for
Dashboard and I don't /really/ need Spotlight.
10.5 might be slower than 10.4 but the extra facilities are worth it.
I consider doing the same with my iBook G4, just to have classic back (and
again something portable) when I finish reassembling. (It had issues with
hangs. It turned out that running with an external FW-disk was completely
okay. The internal disk also was ok, but booting from CD-ROM also failed.
So, I suspict it was the IDE-controller. Since the book is not really usable
with external disks only, I risked losing it completely by extracting the
board and baking it for three minutes at 250 degrees Celsius. Just enough to
make the sure the solder will get liquid. With that, I grilled the
onboard-RAM. So I disabled it with a sharp knife, cutting the VCC-Pins from
the first chip. It worked, booting the internal disk is possible again!
Yeeha! Didn't take time to reassemble completely, yet.) If I can
persuade or bribe Tony into fixing my SE/30, I shall be
looking for an Ethernet board. And an external-monitor adaptor, lots
of RAM and AU/X. ;?)
That could be hard to find. The SE/30 has only one slot. It should be
daisy-chainable but next problem could be space. And, I can't see how to
mount ethernet- and monitor ports on the rear.
8:53 a.m.
Am 07.11.2012 um 14:23 schrieb Liam Proven:
I remember when Blue Box appeared in the OS X betas.
Many people had
said that the new window decorations took too much space, but when you
could inter-mix them with OS9 windows, you could see that they were
actually exactly the same size.
Yes, there's no difference between OS X and OS 8+. The difference is
with Sys < 8.
You are more intrepid than I!
From doing nothing comes nothing :-)
The Micron (?) board that also enables greyscale
display on the
internal 9" monitor would be lovely to have. There is/was an effort to
reverse-engineer and reimplement it, but I don't think it got
anywhere...
Oh, that's relatively easy (to guess). I suspict, they redirect the
internal video to the Micron board to get the right monitor
frequencies and timing. The board has it's own framebuffer for
grayscale which gets properly inserted into the NuBus declaration
structs. The video cirquity will be managed by the Micron via some
cabling. At least that's what I would do. :-)
:wq! PoC
9 Nov
9 Nov
4:15 a.m.
On 7 Nov 2012, at 2:13 , Schindler Patrik <poc at pocnet.net> wrote:
Am 06.11.2012 um 23:19 schrieb Liam Proven:
<http://www.biwa.ne.jp/~shamada/fullmac/se30_minitowerEng.html>
.tsooJ
--
A: Because it fouls the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?
--
Joost van de Griek
<http://www.jvdg.net/>
If I can persuade or bribe Tony into fixing my
SE/30, I shall be
looking for an Ethernet board. And an external-monitor adaptor, lots
of RAM and AU/X. ;?)
That could be hard to find. The SE/30 has only one slot. It should be daisy-chainable but
next problem could be space. And, I can't see how to mount ethernet- and monitor ports
on the rear.
6 Nov
6 Nov
8:29 p.m.
Am 06.11.2012 um 22:54 schrieb David Riley:
Ha! Screen savers. I remember After Dark; it was one
of the most
reliable ways to make your Mac unreliable.
Interesting. Perhaps with external modules? Nowadays, I like Starry
Night best and can't find any problems with AD on different machines.
But yes, I remember that certain combinations of extensions including
AD would make my box crash more often. Can't remember which box or
which combinations, though.
If I had the desk space to run my 7300 as an everyday
machine (and
were willing to put up with the whine of its absurdly loud Barracuda
next to me all day), I think I'd demote it from the 9.1 I'd upgraded
to by the time
I recommend using an IBM DCAS 34330. They're usually *very* quiet and
you've plenty of space available. (Second, I equipped the power supply
with a temperature regulated fan. The "G3"-Card stays cooler than the
original 601-card, so the fan mostly works on minimum speed. I'm
hearing my G5 louder than this 7500.)
I'm almost
of a mind to build a bridge of my own with a small Ethernet-
capable micro and an external 8530
I'm utilizing a STARLAN Box for that. Hangs after a few weeks and
needs a reset, then.
for example, I can't browse my Windows
machines' SMB shares if I
give them static IPs for some reason
This is strange. I learned, that everything will be fine with browsing
when all machines register themselves on one WINS-Server. Without, the
browsing list changes with every refresh, especially in big company
networks. Perhaps, DHCP sends an "your-wins-server-is"-option and you
miss to configure that manually?
:wq! PoC
8:57 p.m.
Am 06.11.2012 um 22:20 schrieb Liam Proven:
Thanks! I started to be worried...
Ah-ha! :-)
Depends. :-) I'm trying to get as many machines as possible from
ethernet to my Token Ring. :-) Best thing I got recently was a network
card for my APC-UPS. Token Ring! :-D
Thanks! All of this wasn't built in a day but over years. Yes, it was
an effort. But it works when I need it and I can impress people :-)
Everyone has a focus on his own usage. :-)
Thanks. Like it pleases you to see your old Macs on the web, it
pleases me to actually use the machines for something. Usage is not so
heavy like when the particular boxes were my only one but they have
usage.
On my LC runs Sys 6. I need to make space, so I can tinker with the
source of IRCle. I miss a few features. ;-) Unfortunately, compilation
is not possible with the most recent version of THINK Pascal. I
suspict a compiler bug. When compiling, TP stops complaining about the
type of a parameter given to SFGetFile(). With TP 2 under Sys 6, it
works. Same source files.
:wq! PoC
first, please
apoplogize. I didn't and don't want to offend! It's
just the
way I feel from years of practice.
Oh no, not at all. I am enjoying the debate! But I started out on Macs in the very late days of
System 6 & moved to
System 7 within months.
I started my use of Macs in 1988, a Mac II with a 1-bit Viking
Moniterm TTL 19", 1024x768 display with anti-glare. 2MB RAM, System
6.0.3. (Helping my dad run a new company.) Comparing to what I've seen
in classmates' homes, this was heaven on earth! So, I'm very used to
System 6. :-) Anyone remember the backup program shipped with 6.0.3? I
once had to make a full restore and this damned thing had no idea of
the folder structure. I put all files just onto the plain disk!
Later, when I had money for an used SE/30 in 1992, I tried to stay
with 6.0.7 but System 7 had many advantages for me also. Try to move a
file from a window behind the destination window into this destination
window in Sys 6 and Sys 7. With Sys 6, the source window will rise,
possibly cover the destination window and you're doomed to put the
file back and shuffle windows first. With Sys 7, the source window
stays behind, won't cover the destination window and you can easily
move the file. That's important when working on a 512x384-pixel
screen. When running programs in the background (actually doing
something), everything feels a lot smoother in Sys 7 than with Sys 6.
And, copying files, emptying the trash in the background! And a lot
more.
One the downside, screen redraws felt a low slower than with Sys 6.
I am used to a clock in the menu bar
SuperClock! My Choice for Sys 6 and 7!
a hierarchical Apple menu, a modular control panel, a
screen-saver,
things like that. It is perfectly possible to add all this to Sys6
with some INITs and CDEVs - although it was tricky to find them when I
did it, and that was 5-6y ago now.
I agree.
I must admit, I don't use any Macs slower than
that. I have an LC2 but
I mean just to fix it up & try to sell it. 68030 is as low as I want
to go these days, I think. :)
I'm very happy with my IIfx, running Sys 7.1. :-) Okay, this is a bad
example, since it's the fastest 030 from Apple.
Certainly, I would run the lowest system version that
did what I
needed if I was on a 68000, so I agree with you there.
Thanks :-)
Maybe it's
reasonably quick when it's running but booting is
painfully slow
on low end machines. Especially *with* extensions to provide a
"pleasant and
productive environment". ;-)
I didn't find it so, actually. The Classic II maxes out at 10MB of
RAM; 7.6.1 recommends a minimum of 12MB. I did not expect it to work.
It did, very well.
Then I turned off virtual memory and added RAMdoubler. ;?) I think our attitudes differ on this.
Yes, I absolutely agree.
If if comes
down to machines not equipped with Ethernet or Token
Ring,
there's no other choice than running AppleTalk over LocalTalk. One
may use
MacTCP or Open Transport to encap IP into AppleTalk packets, so
still IP is
possible (with a maximum MTU of 576 Bytes).
Aha! I use an Asant? EtherSCSI. If I can't have Ethernet and TCP/IP, I
regard it as not being networked, these days. I have a
LaserJet 5100, equipped with a Token Ring network card.
How can I
print from my IIfx on this? HP Token Ring equipment doesn't talk
AppleTalk.
I'm printing into a Netware queue via AppleTalk. From there, the
pserver.nlm
takes the job and feeds it to the printer via IPX.
Cunning!
But probably more work than I would go to, I fear. You see, the
extent of "you need TCP/IP" statement depends heavily
on usage
scenarios.
Well, true. I was thinking only of my own use, I confess. Me either. So
we're basically talkin' 'bout the same. Let alone,
the way of
usage seems to be different. Example: On my IIfx, I'm running
Ircle, for
chatting on an internal IRC-Network with a lot of friends. I'm
running
telnet to tail -f the system log of my linux box. I'm running MacX
to see
what XLoad tells about the usage of my Linux box. I'm running
Newswatcher to
read and answer interesting discussions in Mac centric usenet
groups. I'm
running Peter Lewis' talk(d) applications for copypasting Web-URLs
from and
to IRC or news articles, to watch on the G5. This is a very IP-
centric
usage.
Definitely, yes. But probably more work than I would bother to do. I
am very impressed, though!
7 Nov
7 Nov
8:26 a.m.
On 7 November 2012 01:57, Schindler Patrik <poc at pocnet.net> wrote:
I started my use of Macs in 1988, a Mac II with a 1-bit Viking Moniterm TTL
19", 1024x768 display with anti-glare.
I think I have one of those in the garage, if you would like it...?
Not sure how I can get it from London to Germany, but I have a friend
who drives from London to Hannover 1 or 2 times a year to visit her
parents... and some others who sometimes drive to/from Luneberg...
--
Liam Proven ? Profile: http://lproven.livejournal.com/profile
Email: lproven at cix.co.uk ? GMail/G+/Twitter/Flickr/Facebook: lproven
MSN: lproven at hotmail.com ? Skype/AIM/Yahoo/LinkedIn: liamproven
Tel: +44 20-8685-0498 ? Cell: +44 7939-087884
9:35 a.m.
I am going to show my ignorance here, but would a M0437 be of any use? I
have 2 of them...
See here for pic and description http://www.welovemacs.com/m0437.html
Cindy Croxton
Electronics Plus
1613 Water Street
Kerrville, TX 78028
(830)792-3400 phone (830)792-3404 fax
AOL IM elcpls
-----Original Message-----
From: cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org [mailto:cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org]
On Behalf Of Schindler Patrik
Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2012 7:57 PM
To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts
Subject: Re: Networking a Macintosh SE/30
Am 06.11.2012 um 22:20 schrieb Liam Proven:
Thanks! I started to be worried...
Ah-ha! :-)
Depends. :-) I'm trying to get as many machines as possible from ethernet to
my Token Ring. :-) Best thing I got recently was a network card for my
APC-UPS. Token Ring! :-D
Thanks! All of this wasn't built in a day but over years. Yes, it was an
effort. But it works when I need it and I can impress people :-)
Everyone has a focus on his own usage. :-)
Thanks. Like it pleases you to see your old Macs on the web, it pleases me
to actually use the machines for something. Usage is not so heavy like when
the particular boxes were my only one but they have usage.
On my LC runs Sys 6. I need to make space, so I can tinker with the source
of IRCle. I miss a few features. ;-) Unfortunately, compilation is not
possible with the most recent version of THINK Pascal. I suspict a compiler
bug. When compiling, TP stops complaining about the type of a parameter
given to SFGetFile(). With TP 2 under Sys 6, it works. Same source files.
:wq! PoC
-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2013.0.2742 / Virus Database: 2617/5875 - Release Date: 11/05/12
-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2013.0.2742 / Virus Database: 2617/5875 - Release Date: 11/05/12
first, please
apoplogize. I didn't and don't want to offend! It's
just the way I feel from years of practice.
Oh no, not at all. I am enjoying the debate! But I started out on Macs in the very late days of
System 6 & moved to
System 7 within months.
I started my use of Macs in 1988, a Mac II with a 1-bit Viking Moniterm TTL
19", 1024x768 display with anti-glare. 2MB RAM, System 6.0.3. (Helping my
dad run a new company.) Comparing to what I've seen in classmates' homes,
this was heaven on earth! So, I'm very used to System 6. :-) Anyone remember
the backup program shipped with 6.0.3? I once had to make a full restore and
this damned thing had no idea of the folder structure. I put all files just
onto the plain disk!
Later, when I had money for an used SE/30 in 1992, I tried to stay with
6.0.7 but System 7 had many advantages for me also. Try to move a file from
a window behind the destination window into this destination window in Sys 6
and Sys 7. With Sys 6, the source window will rise, possibly cover the
destination window and you're doomed to put the file back and shuffle
windows first. With Sys 7, the source window stays behind, won't cover the
destination window and you can easily move the file. That's important when
working on a 512x384-pixel screen. When running programs in the background
(actually doing something), everything feels a lot smoother in Sys 7 than
with Sys 6.
And, copying files, emptying the trash in the background! And a lot more.
One the downside, screen redraws felt a low slower than with Sys 6.
I am used to a clock in the menu bar
SuperClock! My Choice for Sys 6 and 7!
a hierarchical Apple menu, a modular control panel, a
screen-saver,
things like that. It is perfectly possible to add all this to Sys6
with some INITs and CDEVs - although it was tricky to find them when I
did it, and that was 5-6y ago now.
I agree.
I must admit, I don't use any Macs slower than
that. I have an LC2 but
I mean just to fix it up & try to sell it. 68030 is as low as I want
to go these days, I think. :)
I'm very happy with my IIfx, running Sys 7.1. :-) Okay, this is a bad
example, since it's the fastest 030 from Apple.
Certainly, I would run the lowest system version that
did what I
needed if I was on a 68000, so I agree with you there.
Thanks :-)
Maybe it's
reasonably quick when it's running but booting is
painfully slow on low end machines. Especially *with* extensions to
provide a "pleasant and productive environment". ;-)
I didn't find it so, actually. The Classic II maxes out at 10MB of
RAM; 7.6.1 recommends a minimum of 12MB. I did not expect it to work.
It did, very well.
Then I turned off virtual memory and added RAMdoubler. ;?) I think our attitudes differ on this.
Yes, I absolutely agree.
If if comes
down to machines not equipped with Ethernet or Token
Ring, there's no other choice than running AppleTalk over LocalTalk.
One may use MacTCP or Open Transport to encap IP into AppleTalk
packets, so still IP is possible (with a maximum MTU of 576 Bytes).
Aha! I use an Asant? EtherSCSI. If I can't have Ethernet and TCP/IP, I
regard it as not being networked, these days. I have a
LaserJet 5100, equipped with a Token Ring network card.
How can I
print from my IIfx on this? HP Token Ring equipment doesn't talk
AppleTalk.
I'm printing into a Netware queue via AppleTalk. From there, the
pserver.nlm takes the job and feeds it to the printer via IPX.
Cunning!
But probably more work than I would go to, I fear. You see, the
extent of "you need TCP/IP" statement depends heavily on
usage scenarios.
Well, true. I was thinking only of my own use, I confess. Me either. So
we're basically talkin' 'bout the same. Let alone, the
way of usage seems to be different. Example: On my IIfx, I'm running
Ircle, for chatting on an internal IRC-Network with a lot of friends.
I'm running telnet to tail -f the system log of my linux box. I'm
running MacX to see what XLoad tells about the usage of my Linux box.
I'm running Newswatcher to read and answer interesting discussions in
Mac centric usenet groups. I'm running Peter Lewis' talk(d)
applications for copypasting Web-URLs from and to IRC or news
articles, to watch on the G5. This is a very IP- centric usage.
Definitely, yes. But probably more work than I would bother to do. I
am very impressed, though!
9:42 a.m.
Am 07.11.2012 um 15:35 schrieb Cindy Croxton Electronics Plus:
I am going to show my ignorance here, but would a
M0437 be of any
use? I
have 2 of them...
See here for pic and description http://www.welovemacs.com/m0437.html
For old machines, yes.
:wq! PoC
9:45 a.m.
On 7 November 2012 14:35, Cindy Croxton Electronics Plus
<sales at elecplus.com> wrote:
I am going to show my ignorance here, but would a
M0437 be of any use? I
have 2 of them...
See here for pic and description http://www.welovemacs.com/m0437.html
No, I'm afraid not. That is for connecting Macs with onboard Ethernet
that uses Apple's weird connector to more standard cabling.
It's not actually an Ethernet adaptor in its own right, which adds an
Ethernet interface to machines which don't have it already.
Nice try, though! :?)
--
Liam Proven ? Profile: http://lproven.livejournal.com/profile
Email: lproven at cix.co.uk ? GMail/G+/Twitter/Flickr/Facebook: lproven
MSN: lproven at hotmail.com ? Skype/AIM/Yahoo/LinkedIn: liamproven
Tel: +44 20-8685-0498 ? Cell: +44 7939-087884
10:25 a.m.
http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~netmgr/ether.mac.html
This lists known working Ethernet devices.
http://www.mail-archive.com/compact.macs at mail.maclaunch.com/msg05666.html
This lists some alternatives.
Cindy Croxton
Electronics Plus
1613 Water Street
Kerrville, TX 78028
(830)792-3400 phone (830)792-3404 fax
AOL IM elcpls
-----Original Message-----
From: cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org [mailto:cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org]
On Behalf Of Liam Proven
Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2012 8:46 AM
To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts
Subject: Re: Networking a Macintosh SE/30
On 7 November 2012 14:35, Cindy Croxton Electronics Plus
<sales at elecplus.com> wrote:
I am going to show my ignorance here, but would a
M0437 be of any use?
I have 2 of them...
See here for pic and description http://www.welovemacs.com/m0437.html
No, I'm afraid not. That is for connecting Macs with onboard Ethernet that
uses Apple's weird connector to more standard cabling.
It's not actually an Ethernet adaptor in its own right, which adds an
Ethernet interface to machines which don't have it already.
Nice try, though! :?)
--
Liam Proven ? Profile: http://lproven.livejournal.com/profile
Email: lproven at cix.co.uk ? GMail/G+/Twitter/Flickr/Facebook: lproven
MSN: lproven at hotmail.com ? Skype/AIM/Yahoo/LinkedIn: liamproven
Tel: +44 20-8685-0498 ? Cell: +44 7939-087884
-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2013.0.2742 / Virus Database: 2617/5875 - Release Date: 11/05/12
-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2013.0.2742 / Virus Database: 2617/5875 - Release Date: 11/05/12
10:58 a.m.
On Nov 7, 2012, at 10:25 AM, Cindy Croxton Electronics Plus wrote:
http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~netmgr/ether.mac.html
This lists known working Ethernet devices.
http://www.mail-archive.com/compact.macs at mail.maclaunch.com/msg05666.html
This lists some alternatives.
I think the difficulty is in finding a way to do BOTH Ethernet
and an external monitor controller, since the SE/30 only has
one PDS slot (and thus one opening in the back). There are no
combined cards to the best of my knowledge. There are some
video controllers that allow the internal display to be used
for 4-bit gray (or was it 4-color? I can't remember), but
even then you'd still have to figure out a way to put both
cards in the chassis.
- Dave
6:29 p.m.
On Nov 7, 2012, at 17:57, Schindler Patrik <poc at pocnet.net> wrote:
Am 07.11.2012 um 16:58 schrieb David Riley:
Haha, yes, sorry. Meant 4-level (I'm still use to calling 2-bit
"4-color", so it stuck).
- Dave
There are some video controllers that allow the
internal display to be used
for 4-bit gray (or was it 4-color? I can't remember)
A B/W CRT can't display color. 
6:30 p.m.
> A B/W CRT can't display color.
On Thu,
8 Nov 2012, Tony Duell wrote:
Not even with a rotating disk of colour filters in
front of it? (CBS
system???)
Or three B&W CRTs, each with it's own filter, and a "beam-splitter"
(reversed to combine) in a projection system (~1970 projection TV)
9 Nov
9 Nov
2:49 p.m.
> A B/W CRT can't display color.
On
Thu, 8 Nov 2012, Tony Duell wrote:
Not even with a rotating disk of colour filters
in front of it? (CBS
system???)
Or three B&W CRTs, each with it's own filter, and a "beam-splitter"
(reversed to combine) in a projection system (~1970
projection TV)
Rhater later than that over here. I remember such sets (back projection
onto a large-ish scren) in the 1990s here.
-tony
4:32 p.m.
Color CRT monitors have 3 guns (red, blue, and green) but a mono monitor has
only 1 gun. So even if you used filters to "fool" yourself into thinking
color, it can't actually be color, because there is only 1 gun!
Cindy Croxton
Electronics Plus
1613 Water Street
Kerrville, TX 78028
(830)792-3400 phone (830)792-3404 fax
AOL IM elcpls
-----Original Message-----
From: cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org [mailto:cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org]
On Behalf Of Tony Duell
Sent: Friday, November 09, 2012 1:50 PM
To: cctalk at classiccmp.org
Subject: Re: Networking a Macintosh SE/30
\begin{pedant}
That's no _A_ B&W CRT. It's 3 of them
\end{pedant}
I suppsoe you could divde the screen of a single CRT into 3 sections. Put
diffent filters over each scetion, and then combine them into a single image
usign the 'reverse beamsplitter'. That's _A- B&W CRT displaying a colour
image.
> A B/W CRT can't display color.
On
Thu, 8 Nov 2012, Tony Duell wrote:
Not even with a rotating disk of colour filters
in front of it? (CBS
system???)
Or three B&W CRTs, each with it's own filter, and a "beam-splitter"
(reversed to combine) in a projection system (~1970
projection TV)
Rhater later than that over here. I remember such sets (back projection onto
a large-ish scren) in the 1990s here.
-tony
-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2013.0.2793 / Virus Database: 2624/5882 - Release Date: 11/08/12
-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2013.0.2793 / Virus Database: 2624/5882 - Release Date: 11/08/12
5:38 p.m.
On 9 Nov 2012, at 1:32 PM, Cindy Croxton Electronics Plus wrote:
Color CRT monitors have 3 guns (red, blue, and green)
but a mono monitor has
only 1 gun. So even if you used filters to "fool" yourself into thinking
color, it can't actually be color, because there is only 1 gun!
*cough* Trinitron *cough*
--
Dr. Christian Kennedy
chris at mainecoon.com AF6AP | DB00000692 | PG00029419
http://www.mainecoon.com PGP KeyID 108DAB97
PGP fingerprint: 4E99 10B6 7253 B048 6685 6CBC 55E1 20A3 108D AB97
"Mr. McKittrick, after careful consideration..."
5:54 p.m.
We have Sony Triniton monitors here, and I have repaired them, many years
ago.
If I recall correctly, they still have 3 guns on the color monitors.
Never tried to fix a mono monitor though. We have enough good used ones,
and some still in the box,
both 9-pin and 15-pin SVGA. We even have some funky "mono" 9-pin monitors
that have a switch on the front to make them Amber, Green, or black and
white!
Cindy Croxton
Electronics Plus
1613 Water Street
Kerrville, TX 78028
(830)792-3400 phone (830)792-3404 fax
AOL IM elcpls
-----Original Message-----
From: cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org [mailto:cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org]
On Behalf Of Christian Kennedy
Sent: Friday, November 09, 2012 4:38 PM
To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts
Subject: Re: Networking a Macintosh SE/30
On 9 Nov 2012, at 1:32 PM, Cindy Croxton Electronics Plus wrote:
Color CRT monitors have 3 guns (red, blue, and green)
but a mono
monitor has only 1 gun. So even if you used filters to "fool"
yourself into thinking color, it can't actually be color, because there is
only
1 gun!
*cough* Trinitron *cough*
--
Dr. Christian Kennedy
chris at mainecoon.com AF6AP | DB00000692 | PG00029419
http://www.mainecoon.com PGP KeyID 108DAB97
PGP fingerprint: 4E99 10B6 7253 B048 6685 6CBC 55E1 20A3 108D AB97 "Mr.
McKittrick, after careful consideration..."
-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2013.0.2793 / Virus Database: 2624/5882 - Release Date: 11/08/12
-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2013.0.2793 / Virus Database: 2624/5882 - Release Date: 11/08/12
6:45 p.m.
On 9 Nov 2012, at 2:54 PM, Cindy Croxton Electronics Plus wrote:
We have Sony Triniton monitors here, and I have
repaired them, many years
ago.
If I recall correctly, they still have 3 guns on the color monitors.
They do not; they have a single gun with three cathodes used in conjunction with a
aperture grille screen (hence the name, which is derived from "trinity", the
union of three, and "tron" from "electron tube"). When Sony's
patents ran out other vendors were free to use the technology but not the name, resulting
in things like Diamondtron, SonicTron, Technitron, MumbleTron, etc.
In the end it has nothing to do with the number of guns; it's conformance with a
standard.
--
Dr. Christian Kennedy
chris at mainecoon.com AF6AP | DB00000692 | PG00029419
http://www.mainecoon.com PGP KeyID 108DAB97
PGP fingerprint: 4E99 10B6 7253 B048 6685 6CBC 55E1 20A3 108D AB97
"Mr. McKittrick, after careful consideration..."
12 Nov
12 Nov
5:28 a.m.
Am 10.11.2012 um 00:45 schrieb Christian Kennedy:
On 9 Nov 2012, at 2:54 PM, Cindy Croxton Electronics Plus wrote:
What is the definition of "gun" in this context? Only the cathode? Or the
cathode with electrodes to accelerate up the electrons to the neccessary speed?
:wq! PoC
We have Sony Triniton monitors here, and I have
repaired them, many years
ago.
If I recall correctly, they still have 3 guns on the color monitors.
They do not; they have a single gun with three cathodes
10 Nov
10 Nov
4:05 p.m.
On 9 Nov 2012, at 1:32 PM, Cindy Croxton Electronics Plus wrote:
A Trinitron CRT has 3 cathodes (one for each priamry colour), albeit with
one set of grids/anodes in front of them. Whether that's one electorn gun
or three is a matter of debate.
However, I do not see why a single cathode, single electron gun CRT can't
display a colour image. Onme scheme that was proposd was to put narrow
vertical stripes of the 3 phosphors on the screen, have no shaddowmask or
apaertuee grille and just sacn one beam over them. Then swithc the
modulation signal appopriately as the beam passes each colour of
phosphor. Getting the switching synchronised with the beam position was
the problem, anmd AFAIK it was never used commercially, but ti could work.
And I still don't see why a B&W CRT with a rotating colour filter wheel
in front does not displa colour images for any reasonable definition of
'colour image'.
-tony
Color CRT monitors have 3 guns (red, blue, and
green) but a mono monitor has
only 1 gun. So even if you used filters to "fool" yourself into thinking
color, it can't actually be color, because there is only 1 gun!
*cough* Trinitron *cough*
12 Nov
12 Nov
5:24 a.m.
Am 09.11.2012 um 23:38 schrieb Christian Kennedy:
*cough* Trinitron *cough*
...also has three guns. Colors (guns) need to be set independently in intensity to mix
them to the desired color. Time multiplex is no option. Scanning the screen three times
with given clock rates would yield excessive flicker.
:wq! PoC
5:49 a.m.
On Mon, 12 Nov 2012, Patrik Schindler wrote:
Am 09.11.2012 um 23:38 schrieb Christian Kennedy:
Last time I checked, Trinitron CRTs had three guns just like all other
color CRTs. The key difference is that the guns are in a vertical line
instead of a cluster. This gave some advantages in resolution.
--
David Griffith
dgriffi at cs.csubak.edu
A: Because it fouls the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?
*cough* Trinitron *cough*
...also has three guns. Colors (guns) need to be set independently in
intensity to mix them to the desired color. Time multiplex is no option.
Scanning the screen three times with given clock rates would yield
excessive flicker.
5:51 p.m.
Last time I checked, Trinitron CRTs had three guns
just like all other
color CRTs. The key difference is that the guns are in a vertical line
instead of a cluster. This gave some advantages in resolution.
A PIL tube has 3 separate electron guns in a _horizontal_ line in the
neck. A Trinitron tube IIRC has 3 cathodes in a horixotnal line and then
common cotnrol and accelerating electrodes. Whether that's 1 gun or 3 is
up to you ;-)
Actually, an in-line gun CRT produces a slightly inferior picture to a
proeprly set up delta gun CRT. But the big advantage is that confergrance
and purity are affected by only the vertical component of the earth's
magneitc field, not the horixotnal component. The former is much the saev
over large area, the latter chagnes if you turn the TV or monitor round.
So a detal gun CRT relaly has to be set up in the position it is to be
used, making poratble TVs lamost impossible nad meaning that a 'fixed' TV
or monitor needs a dozen or more presets twaeked when you instlal it,
whereas an in-lice CRT can be set up at the factory and won't need
adjustments at installation.
-tony
9 Nov
9 Nov
6:17 p.m.
On 11/09/2012 01:32 PM, Cindy Croxton Electronics Plus wrote:
Color CRT monitors have 3 guns (red, blue, and green)
but a mono monitor has
only 1 gun. So even if you used filters to "fool" yourself into thinking
color, it can't actually be color, because there is only 1 gun!
The number of electron guns is irrelevant--both Sony and Philco offered
beam-index color CRTs with but a single gun.
At any rate, between 1950 and 1953, the official color television
standard in the USA was the CBS field-sequential system, which, compared
with the RCA system of the same time was quite good (at least for the
time)--a mechanical 3-color filter was spun in front of the CRT,
synchronized to a similar filter at the camera.
It wasn't until 1953 that RCA had improved its system well enough for
NTSC color to become the official standard.
A few CBS System receivers still exist.
--Chuck
7:40 p.m.
New subject: old tv's and CRT's
On 11/9/2012 4:17 PM, Chuck Guzis wrote:
At any rate, between 1950 and 1953, the official color
television
standard in the USA was the CBS field-sequential system, which, compared
with the RCA system of the same time was quite good (at least for the
time)--a mechanical 3-color filter was spun in front of the CRT,
synchronized to a similar filter at the camera.
It wasn't until 1953 that RCA had improved its system well enough for
NTSC color to become the official standard.
A few CBS System receivers still exist.
Lots of vintage TV's still can be found. It is getting working color
CRT's that are the problem
from what I read on the net. Now might be the last time
to find CRT's
for vintage computer
equipment.
--Chuck
Has the color on modern display devices
matched the color purity of the
early TV's yet?
Ben.
8:07 p.m.
New subject: old tv's and CRT's
On 11/09/2012 04:40 PM, ben wrote:
Has the color on modern display devices matched the
color purity of the
early TV's yet?
If you're talking about 1950s RCA/NTSC sets, then the answer is
no--modern displays were much better. I vividly remember one of the
first families on the block to get color TV around 1957. It was an RCA
set--the color was greenish and the reds had a longer persistence than
the other phosphors, so red objects would "smear" badly on a dark
background.
Really, NTSC was terrible when it was new and didn't improve all that much.
--Chuck
13 Nov
13 Nov
8:31 a.m.
New subject: old tv's and CRT's
I have 200+ schematics for OLD TVs, radios, stereos, VCRs, etc. Mostly
Sam's, some originals from the mfr. Bound 30+ per 3-ring binder for the
most part. Any takers?
Cindy Croxton
Electronics Plus
1613 Water Street
Kerrville, TX 78028
(830)792-3400 phone (830)792-3404 fax
AOL IM elcpls
-----Original Message-----
From: cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org [mailto:cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org]
On Behalf Of ben
Sent: Friday, November 09, 2012 6:41 PM
To: cctalk at classiccmp.org
Subject: Re: old tv's and CRT's
On 11/9/2012 4:17 PM, Chuck Guzis wrote:
At any rate, between 1950 and 1953, the official color
television
standard in the USA was the CBS field-sequential system, which,
compared with the RCA system of the same time was quite good (at least
for the time)--a mechanical 3-color filter was spun in front of the
CRT, synchronized to a similar filter at the camera.
It wasn't until 1953 that RCA had improved its system well enough for
NTSC color to become the official standard.
A few CBS System receivers still exist.
Lots of vintage TV's still can be found. It is getting working color CRT's
that are the problem from what I read on the net. Now might be the last time
to find CRT's for vintage computer equipment.
--Chuck
Has the color on modern display devices
matched the color purity of the
early TV's yet?
Ben.
-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2013.0.2793 / Virus Database: 2624/5889 - Release Date: 11/11/12
-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2013.0.2793 / Virus Database: 2624/5889 - Release Date: 11/11/12
7:40 p.m.
On Nov 8, 2012, at 7:10 PM, Schindler Patrik wrote:
Am 08.11.2012 um 21:48 schrieb Tony Duell:
Even then not. The picture of the phosphor stays monochrome, regardless of anything in
front of it.
I think Tony's point (pathological corner case though it is)
is that a B&W CRT *can* display color with such a filtering
device; it's how early color TVs worked. The SE/30 has no
method for doing so on any existing video controller, though
I suppose one *could* make such a card if one were suddenly
in possession of far too much spare time.
Come to think of it, I believe it's also how modern DLP
projectors work as well; if you move your eyes fast enough
on a DLP projection, you can see the individual colors
as ghosted images on your retina. It's not a CRT, of
course, but the color concept is the same.
- Dave
A B/W CRT
can't display color.
Not even with a rotating disk of colour filters in front of it? (CBS
system???) 
8:17 p.m.
New subject: was:Networking a Macintosh SE/30 - color from B&W
I remember reading in the 60's about a method that used flicker to
make the visual system perceive muted colors on a monochrome TV screen.
I think it had the small problem of causing eye strain, head aches
and in extreme cases, seizures in susceptible individuals.
Tek developed a LCD shutter tech in the 70's that displayed multiple
colors from a mono screen, but that's not really color from a mono screen.
--jim
-----Original Message-----
From: cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org
[mailto:cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org]On Behalf Of David Riley
Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2012 4:41 PM
To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts
Subject: Re: Networking a Macintosh SE/30
On Nov 8, 2012, at 7:10 PM, Schindler Patrik wrote:
Am 08.11.2012 um 21:48 schrieb Tony Duell:
Even then not. The picture of the phosphor stays monochrome, regardless of
anything
in front of it.
I think Tony's point (pathological corner case though it is)
is that a B&W CRT *can* display color with such a filtering
device; it's how early color TVs worked. The SE/30 has no
method for doing so on any existing video controller, though
I suppose one *could* make such a card if one were suddenly
in possession of far too much spare time.
Come to think of it, I believe it's also how modern DLP
projectors work as well; if you move your eyes fast enough
on a DLP projection, you can see the individual colors
as ghosted images on your retina. It's not a CRT, of
course, but the color concept is the same.
- Dave
A B/W CRT
can't display color.
Not even with a rotating disk of colour filters in front of it? (CBS
system???)
10:04 p.m.
New subject: was:Networking a Macintosh SE/30 - color from B&W
I did some poking aroung and found this:
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=178624
I'm sure someone has a demo of this effect on the net.
--jim
-----Original Message-----
From: cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org
[mailto:cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org]On Behalf Of jim davis
Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2012 5:18 PM
To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts
Subject: RE: was:Networking a Macintosh SE/30 - color from B&W
I remember reading in the 60's about a method that used flicker to
make the visual system perceive muted colors on a monochrome TV screen.
I think it had the small problem of causing eye strain, head aches
and in extreme cases, seizures in susceptible individuals.
Tek developed a LCD shutter tech in the 70's that displayed multiple
colors from a mono screen, but that's not really color from a mono screen.
--jim
-----Original Message-----
From: cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org
[mailto:cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org]On Behalf Of David Riley
Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2012 4:41 PM
To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts
Subject: Re: Networking a Macintosh SE/30
On Nov 8, 2012, at 7:10 PM, Schindler Patrik wrote:
Am 08.11.2012 um 21:48 schrieb Tony Duell:
Even then not. The picture of the phosphor stays monochrome, regardless of
anything
in front of it.
I think Tony's point (pathological corner case though it is)
is that a B&W CRT *can* display color with such a filtering
device; it's how early color TVs worked. The SE/30 has no
method for doing so on any existing video controller, though
I suppose one *could* make such a card if one were suddenly
in possession of far too much spare time.
Come to think of it, I believe it's also how modern DLP
projectors work as well; if you move your eyes fast enough
on a DLP projection, you can see the individual colors
as ghosted images on your retina. It's not a CRT, of
course, but the color concept is the same.
- Dave
A B/W CRT
can't display color.
Not even with a rotating disk of colour filters in front of it? (CBS
system???)
8:24 p.m.
Am 09.11.2012 um 01:40 schrieb David Riley:
Yes, but this is getting very theoretical, now. Adding an existing
color video card for an external display to the SE/30 is much more
practical and doesn't disturb the SE/30's unique look. :-)
:wq! PoC
Even then not.
The picture of the phosphor stays monochrome,
regardless of anything in front of it.
I think Tony's point (pathological corner case though it is)
is that a B&W CRT *can* display color with such a filtering
device; it's how early color TVs worked. The SE/30 has no
method for doing so on any existing video controller, though
I suppose one *could* make such a card if one were suddenly
in possession of far too much spare time.
Come to think of it, I believe it's also how modern DLP
projectors work as well; if you move your eyes fast enough
on a DLP projection, you can see the individual colors
as ghosted images on your retina. It's not a CRT, of
course, but the color concept is the same.
9 Nov
9 Nov
3:16 p.m.
I think Tony's point (pathological corner case
though it is)
is that a B&W CRT *can* display color with such a filtering
device; it's how early color TVs worked. The SE/30 has no
Precisely. Yes, I was being facetious. But when somebody claims somehtign
is impossible, I immediately wonder if there's a way to do it :-)
There were many scheams tried for colour TV displays before the design of
the shaddowmask CRT. One that I rmemebr reading about hformed the image
on a thin miga screen _inside_ the glass envelone. The screen was ridges
on one face. The to side of each ridge was coated with one colour
phosphor, the bott side with a diffent colour phosphor and the back of
the screen with a thirt colour. There were 3 electron guns in necks
coming off the bulb, each aiming at one of the phosphors. Each had its
own defleciton system. I'll bet settifgn that up was a nightmare.
method for doing so on any existing video controller,
though
I suppose one *could* make such a card if one were suddenly
in possession of far too much spare time.
One microprocessor-based consumer device did use a spinnin gwheel of
colour filters between the user's eyes and a monochrome CRT to get colour
and even 3D effects (by allowing each eye in turn to view the same
screen). Teh Vectrex, of course.
-tony
6:32 p.m.
> I think Tony's point (pathological corner case
though it is) is that
> a B&W CRT *can* display color with such a filtering device;
Well, to drag out the full-on pedantry, I would say that a B&W CRT
can't display colour, but a device of which a B&W CRT forms part (eg, a
B&W CRT plus colour filters and such) may.
/~\ The ASCII Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
X Against HTML mouse at rodents-montreal.org
/ \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B
2:52 p.m.
Am 08.11.2012 um 21:48 schrieb Tony Duell:
Even then not. The picture of the phosphor stays monochrome,
regardless of anything in front of it.
I owuld argue that 'display' implies the visual sensation caused to
somebody looking at the device. And not the light emitted by one
subsystem (the CRT).
Are you goign to claim that an integral tripack colour slide is not a
colour image because each of the layers is only monochrome?
-tony
A B/W CRT
can't display color.
Not even with a rotating disk of colour filters in front of it? (CBS
system???)
7 Nov
7 Nov
11:08 a.m.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Apple-110-00014-100-LC-PDS-10bT-10b2-Mac-Network-Car
d-/190745314482?pt=US_Vintage_Computing_Parts_Accessories&hash=item2c694e84b
2
This is not my listing, but I have 7 of these cards, I think pulled from
LCIIIs. $10 each plus shipping.
Cindy Croxton
Electronics Plus
1613 Water Street
Kerrville, TX 78028
(830)792-3400 phone (830)792-3404 fax
AOL IM elcpls
-----Original Message-----
From: cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org [mailto:cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org]
On Behalf Of Cindy Croxton Electronics Plus
Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2012 9:25 AM
To: 'General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts'
Subject: RE: Networking a Macintosh SE/30
http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~netmgr/ether.mac.html
This lists known working Ethernet devices.
http://www.mail-archive.com/compact.macs at mail.maclaunch.com/msg05666.html
This lists some alternatives.
Cindy Croxton
Electronics Plus
1613 Water Street
Kerrville, TX 78028
(830)792-3400 phone (830)792-3404 fax
AOL IM elcpls
-----Original Message-----
From: cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org [mailto:cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org]
On Behalf Of Liam Proven
Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2012 8:46 AM
To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts
Subject: Re: Networking a Macintosh SE/30
On 7 November 2012 14:35, Cindy Croxton Electronics Plus
<sales at elecplus.com> wrote:
I am going to show my ignorance here, but would a
M0437 be of any use?
I have 2 of them...
See here for pic and description http://www.welovemacs.com/m0437.html
No, I'm afraid not. That is for connecting Macs with onboard Ethernet that
uses Apple's weird connector to more standard cabling.
It's not actually an Ethernet adaptor in its own right, which adds an
Ethernet interface to machines which don't have it already.
Nice try, though! :?)
--
Liam Proven ? Profile: http://lproven.livejournal.com/profile
Email: lproven at cix.co.uk ? GMail/G+/Twitter/Flickr/Facebook: lproven
MSN: lproven at hotmail.com ? Skype/AIM/Yahoo/LinkedIn: liamproven
Tel: +44 20-8685-0498 ? Cell: +44 7939-087884
-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2013.0.2742 / Virus Database: 2617/5875 - Release Date: 11/05/12
-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2013.0.2742 / Virus Database: 2617/5875 - Release Date: 11/05/12
-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2013.0.2742 / Virus Database: 2617/5875 - Release Date: 11/05/12
-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2013.0.2742 / Virus Database: 2617/5875 - Release Date: 11/05/12
1:32 p.m.
On Wed, 7 Nov 2012, Cindy Croxton Electronics Plus wrote:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Apple-110-00014-100-LC-PDS-10bT-10b2-Mac-Network-Car
d-/190745314482?pt=US_Vintage_Computing_Parts_Accessories&hash=item2c694e84b
2
This is not my listing, but I have 7 of these cards, I think pulled from
LCIIIs. $10 each plus shipping.
Those will not physically fit an SE/30.
--
3:53 p.m.
On Wed, 7 Nov 2012, Liam Proven wrote:
On 7 November 2012 14:35, Cindy Croxton Electronics
Plus <sales at elecplus.com> wrote:
The AAUI connector is basically Apple's miniaturized version of the 15-pin
DA-15 AUI connector which was originally used for 10Base-5 ethernet.
External transceivers such as the M0437 are pretty much the same
internally as a generic AUI to 10Base-2 or AUI to 10Base-T transceiver.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Attachment_Unit_Interface
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attachment_Unit_Interface
I am going to show my ignorance here, but would a
M0437 be of any use?
I have 2 of them... See here for pic and description
http://www.welovemacs.com/m0437.html
No, I'm afraid not. That is for connecting Macs with onboard Ethernet
that uses Apple's weird connector to more standard cabling.
It's not actually an Ethernet adaptor in its own right, which adds an
Ethernet interface to machines which don't have it already.
8 Nov
8 Nov
3:40 p.m.
The AAUI connector is basically Apple's
miniaturized version of the 15-pin
DA-15 AUI connector which was originally used for 10Base-5 ethernet.
External transceivers such as the M0437 are pretty much the same
internally as a generic AUI to 10Base-2 or AUI to 10Base-T transceiver.
I beleive that while the AUI connecotr has a 12V power supply for the
external transceiver, the AAUI has a 5V supply. So converting a
transceiver from one to the other is more than just a connactor swap.
-tony
5:50 p.m.
On Thu, 8 Nov 2012 20:40:34 +0000 (GMT)
ard at p850ug1.demon.co.uk (Tony Duell) wrote:
I beleive that while the AUI connecotr has a 12V power
supply for the
external transceiver, the AAUI has a 5V supply. So converting a
transceiver from one to the other is more than just a connactor swap.
I have some
AAUI to AUI converters. They have a PSU build in to provide
12 V power to the AUI side.
--
\end{Jochen}
\ref{http://www.unixag-kl.fh-kl.de/~jkunz/}
5:57 p.m.
On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 3:40 PM, Tony Duell <ard at p850ug1.demon.co.uk> wrote:
I recall the same thing.
-ethan
The AAUI
connector is basically Apple's miniaturized version of the 15-pin
DA-15 AUI connector which was originally used for 10Base-5 ethernet.
External transceivers such as the M0437 are pretty much the same
internally as a generic AUI to 10Base-2 or AUI to 10Base-T transceiver.
I beleive that while the AUI connecotr has a 12V power supply for the
external transceiver, the AAUI has a 5V supply. So converting a
transceiver from one to the other is more than just a connactor swap.
9 Nov
9 Nov
2:46 p.m.
I beleive that
while the AUI connector has a 12V power supply for the
external transceiver, the AAUI has a 5V supply. So converting a
transceiver from one to the other is more than just a connactor swap.
I recall the same thing.
5:41 p.m.
Am 09.11.2012 um 20:46 schrieb Tony Duell:
Yes, because the monitor port on Macs already had been DB15-F, years
before Macs with Onboard-Ethernet came to life. Apple was eager to
keep setting up Macs as easy as possible. That includes distinct
connectors for distinct functions.
Contrary, some vendors implemented standard-AUI on their NuBus
Ethernet cards...
:wq! PoC
I recall the
same thing.
And o yet again Apple did not adhere to an accepted standard....
10 Nov
10 Nov
11:50 a.m.
On 9 Nov 2012, at 23:41 , Schindler Patrik <poc at pocnet.net> wrote:
Am 09.11.2012 um 20:46 schrieb Tony Duell:
Yes, because the monitor port on Macs already had been DB15-F, years before Macs with
Onboard-Ethernet came to life. Apple was eager to keep setting up Macs as easy as
possible. That includes distinct connectors for distinct functions.
Size was also a consideration. Standard AUI connectors would ill fit on PowerBooks.
.tsooJ
--
There are perhaps 5% of the population that simply can't think. There are another 5%
who can, and do. The remaining 90% can think, but don't.
- Robert A. Heinlein
--
Joost van de Griek
<http://www.jvdg.net/>
I recall
the same thing.
And o yet again Apple did not adhere to an accepted standard....
4:08 p.m.
I recall the same thing.
And o yet again Apple
did not adhere to an accepted standard.... before Macs with Onboard-Ethernet came to life. Apple
was eager to
keep setting up Macs as easy as possible. That includes distinct
connectors for distinct functions.
This does not jsutify the change of transceiver supply voltage IMHO. A
connector change is a lot easier than also having to make a voltage
comverter.
-tony
9 Nov
9 Nov
6:05 p.m.
On Fri, 9 Nov 2012, Tony Duell wrote:
And o yet again Apple did not adhere to an accepted standard....
Many transceivers would work no matter what voltage was present,
especially the later types with external (wall-wart) power supplies. I
doubt most of the vampire-tap type 10Base-5 transceivers would work at 5V,
but many of the 10Base-T types would work just fine. Somewhere around here
I still have an AAUI to AUI cable.
I beleive that while the AUI connector has a 12V power
supply for the
external transceiver, the AAUI has a 5V supply. So converting a
transceiver from one to the other is more than just a connactor swap.
I recall the same thing.
7 Nov
7 Nov
10:07 a.m.
On Nov 7, 2012, at 9:35 AM, Cindy Croxton Electronics Plus wrote:
I am going to show my ignorance here, but would a
M0437 be of any use? I
have 2 of them...
See here for pic and description http://www.welovemacs.com/m0437.html
Not for an SE/30, alas. Those are essentially AUI transceivers using
Apple's AAUI connector (a small-form-factor version of AUI pretty
much only found on Macs). They're handy for earlier Macs with built-
in Ethernet but no 10BaseT connector, like Quadras and early Power
Macs. Plenty of folks on this list may find them useful, though
(but they're not especially uncommon).
- Dave
10:32 a.m.
On 7 November 2012 15:07, David Riley <fraveydank at gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 7, 2012, at 9:35 AM, Cindy Croxton Electronics
Plus wrote:
Asante used to make a SCSI <-> Ethernet adapter for classic Macs.
Sorry if someone already answered this. I used to have one... I don't
know what I did with it.
--
Yoyodyne Propulsion Systems: "The Future Begins Tomorrow"
Visit us at: http://www.yoyodyne-propulsion.net
--------
"I'd like to hold off judgement on a thing like that, sir, until all
the facts are in. "
General "Buck" Turgidson
I am going to show my ignorance here, but would a
M0437 be of any use? I
have 2 of them...
See here for pic and description http://www.welovemacs.com/m0437.html
Not for an SE/30, alas. Those are essentially AUI transceivers using
Apple's AAUI connector (a small-form-factor version of AUI pretty
much only found on Macs). They're handy for earlier Macs with built-
in Ethernet but no 10BaseT connector, like Quadras and early Power
Macs. Plenty of folks on this list may find them useful, though
(but they're not especially uncommon).
3:59 p.m.
On Wed, 7 Nov 2012, David Riley wrote:
On Nov 7, 2012, at 9:35 AM, Cindy Croxton Electronics
Plus wrote:
Farallon also made some daisy-chainable AAUI transceivers under their
EtherWave line but the ever decreasing price of 10Base-T hubs doomed them.
I am going to show my ignorance here, but would a
M0437 be of any use?
I have 2 of them... See here for pic and description
http://www.welovemacs.com/m0437.html
Not for an SE/30, alas. Those are essentially AUI transceivers using
Apple's AAUI connector (a small-form-factor version of AUI pretty much
only found on Macs). They're handy for earlier Macs with built- in
Ethernet but no 10BaseT connector, like Quadras and early Power Macs.
Plenty of folks on this list may find them useful, though (but they're
not especially uncommon).
4:32 p.m.
We have boxes and boxes of transceivers here. Any particular pn you are
looking for?
Cindy Croxton
Electronics Plus
1613 Water Street
Kerrville, TX 78028
(830)792-3400 phone (830)792-3404 fax
AOL IM elcpls
-----Original Message-----
From: cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org [mailto:cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org]
On Behalf Of Tothwolf
Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2012 2:59 PM
To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts
Subject: Re: Networking a Macintosh SE/30
On Wed, 7 Nov 2012, David Riley wrote:
On Nov 7, 2012, at 9:35 AM, Cindy Croxton Electronics
Plus wrote:
Farallon also made some daisy-chainable AAUI transceivers under their
EtherWave line but the ever decreasing price of 10Base-T hubs doomed them.
-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2013.0.2742 / Virus Database: 2617/5875 - Release Date: 11/05/12
-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2013.0.2742 / Virus Database: 2617/5875 - Release Date: 11/05/12
I am going to show my ignorance here, but would a
M0437 be of any use?
I have 2 of them... See here for pic and description
http://www.welovemacs.com/m0437.html
Not for an SE/30, alas. Those are essentially AUI transceivers using
Apple's AAUI connector (a small-form-factor version of AUI pretty much
only found on Macs). They're handy for earlier Macs with built- in
Ethernet but no 10BaseT connector, like Quadras and early Power Macs.
Plenty of folks on this list may find them useful, though (but they're
not especially uncommon). 
6 Nov
6 Nov
6:19 p.m.
Schindler Patrik <poc at pocnet.net> wrote:
For MacTCP, you'll have to switch to Ether*net*,
not Ether*talk*.
Ethernet is the native encapsulation type on Ethernet. (EtherTalk,
LocalTalk, TokenTalk will encap TCP/IP-Packets into AppleTalk, for
transporting IP over links which don't support native IP encap.
LocalTalk is a good example for such a link. You need a gateway to
decap such packets.
In the day, that would have been a FastPath, a Gatorbox, or
whatever Webster called their localtalk/ethernet router.
Enter a valid IP address for your network into the
appropriate text
entry field and click on more.
Obtain Address: Manually (I don't know if MacTCP supports DHCP properly)
WARNING!! ISTR a "dynamic" address meant picking a random address on
the subnet!!
On IP over AppleTalk, "server" meant asking a local IPGATEWAY
(FastPath, Gatorbox, ....). ARP over AppleTalk was done with NBP!
On Ethernet, "server" __MIGHT__ mean BOOTP.
This was before DHCP (a superset of BOOTP) existed.
If you have a DHCP server, it might support BOOTP clients.
Phil Budne
(Shiva FastPath 5 Project leader)
5 Nov
5 Nov
7:46 a.m.
On Mon, 5 Nov 2012, David Griffith wrote:
I'm having a nasty time getting the ethernet board
to work. I'm using an
Asante MacCon PSD slot ethernet board.
If this adapter has two port types in the rear (e.g. AUI and 10Base-2
thinnet), the media select switch may be labeled backwards (I have one
with this exact problem). Try flipping it in the "wrong" direction and
see if you have better luck.
--
4269
days inactive
4277
days old
91 comments
25 participants
participants (25)
-
ard＠p850ug1.demon.co.uk -
bfranchuk＠jetnet.ab.ca -
cclist＠sydex.com -
chris＠mainecoon.com -
cisin＠xenosoft.com -
derschjo＠gmail.com -
dgriffi＠cs.csubak.edu -
ethan.dicks＠gmail.com -
fraveydank＠gmail.com -
geneb＠deltasoft.com -
gyorpb＠gmail.com -
jimpdavis＠gorge.net -
jkunz＠unixag-kl.fh-kl.de -
john＠yoyodyne-propulsion.net -
lproven＠gmail.com -
mcguire＠neurotica.com -
mouse＠Rodents-Montreal.ORG -
phil＠ultimate.com -
poc＠pocnet.net -
pu1bzz.listas＠gmail.com -
sales＠elecplus.com -
snhirsch＠gmail.com -
spectre＠floodgap.com -
teoz＠neo.rr.com -
tothwolf＠concentric.net