Last I checked, Apple gave away 7.5.5 as a download for free.
Anyway, you should keep 8.1 Accelerate Your Mac claims that it's faster and more stable than 7.6, which is faster and more stable than 7.5.5
Interesting you say that...
While I like OS 8.X (8.6 ROCKS) this Performa that I'm working with seems to be a bit sluggish when working with OS 8.1... Hell just typing in Word makes a 486 feel faster. I never understood why, it has the cache upgrade and it has it's ram maxed out (64 megs) and we put a speedy 20gig drive in it... but nothing helped. Low End Mac describes it as a "road Apple" and I have to agree... The processer can not be upgraded, it is pre Open Firmware so Linux is out of the question ( ), and as is can only be usable with System 7... it makes my LC 520 feel fast at that. BUT, this is not a desktop box... no, she is a file server these days so as long as it works it will have a job on my network -- and a place in my heart.
It went down about a month ago... so I slapped a monitor on her and only got the disk avec "?"... my first thought was that the drive called it quits... but when I tested the drive in my Linux box all was well... So I backed up the files from the drive (thank you HFS support) and put it back in the Performa for a fresh install. This is where I stand.
I lost the system CD many moves ago. (I have moved 9 times in my life)
So any other ideas would be great...
Maybe someone wants to tell me why this model is so slow? (Performa 6200CD)
"Something rotten in the Kingdom of Cupertino". This was the pits. Dreadful, terrible, bastardized, appalling amalgam of stuff from Apple's parts bin. A 64-bit PPC processor on a 32-bit bus meant the CPU ran at half the clock speed. The mobo was made up of some many variants of bits and pieces that everything ran at a different speed. Even the ROM was full of bugs. It's amazing it even bothered getting up in the morning (it often didn't).
Oh, and the modem port didn't support hardware handshaking, so you were reduced to internet speeds of an out-of-condition snail. The 5200 was an all-in-one (i.e. with a monitor), but its interior brought dishonor to the illustrious breed. There was even humorously-named 'Director's Edition', which was all black, had a TV tuner, a black keyboard and mouse (now highly sought after - they're worth more than the Mac. Seriously) and cost about $US2,500 over here in Oz. Australian MacWorld, clearly without consulting head office, made the hysterically-funny decision to give it a MacWorld 'Best System' award in 1996, citing its 'comprehensive approach to multimedia' and saying that 'after all, everyone in the office wants one'. Why, precisely? As a big, black paperweight? An abstract Mac sculpture, perhaps? If you dropped 2-and-a-half grand on this baby, I actually pity you. If you bought a PC after that, I empathise. When Guy Kawasaki said he'd 'never met a Mac he didn't like', he'd obviously never been trapped in a dark alley late at night with a Performa 5300.
Stay away from OS 7.5.5, it is the crash king. Every Mac I put 7.5.5 on would crash, usually in under 20 minutes. OS 7.5.3 is in second place, and 9.0.4 is third worse.
7.6.1 is the best OS in the 7 series, using about 7 MB of RAM. Next up the ladder is 8.1, using around 21 MB, and introducing HFS+ extended format. Then 9.1 at 70 MB, then 10.3 at 256 MB or higher. I started with OS 1.1 in 1987 on a Mac with no HD, and I think that 7.5.3 and 7.5.5 were the most unstable Mac operating systems ever released. YMMV
Odd... I found it to be one of the most stable. It has not crashed on me in like... years. Mind you I do note the odd slip-up here and there... but that is mostly the programs fault, not the OS. (slip-ups like not colouring all the app windows when using the kolor app for themes)
The only major problem I ever had was du to a extention mismatch back when my family got its first LC. But that was fixed quickly.
Anyway... someone is going to send me a bootable CD so I might have this thing licked. I will update as things progress.
Stay away from OS 7.5.5, it is the crash king. Every Mac I put 7.5.5 on would crash, usually in under 20 minutes. OS 7.5.3 is in second place, and 9.0.4 is third worse.
7.6.1 is the best OS in the 7 series, using about 7 MB of RAM. Next up the ladder is 8.1, using around 21 MB, and introducing HFS+ extended format. Then 9.1 at 70 MB, then 10.3 at 256 MB or higher. I started with OS 1.1 in 1987 on a Mac with no HD, and I think that 7.5.3 and 7.5.5 were the most unstable Mac operating systems ever released. YMMV
I used OS 8.1 quite regularly on a 603e system with 32 MB of RAM, and it never used up more than about 12 MB. YMMV, of course. As far as the core system components and extensions are concerned, it wasn't too different than System 7.6.
Mac OS 8.5 had a lot more PPC optimisations than did previous versions, along with some interface refinements and a few more features. It also gobbles up a lot more memory, approaching 50 MB for a full-featured instal. The Internet and Macs with open firmware boot ROMs were hitting it big around this time, hence the changes.
Mac OS 8.6 introduced a brand new nanokernel; version 8.6.1 is probably the best classic Mac OS to run on a legacy PPC machine if you have enough RAM to spare.
I used OS 8.1 quite regularly on a 603e system with 32 MB of RAM, and it never used up more than about 12 MB. YMMV, of course. As far as the core system components and extensions are concerned, it wasn't too different than System 7.6.
Mac OS 8.5 had a lot more PPC optimisations than did previous versions, along with some interface refinements and a few more features. It also gobbles up a lot more memory, approaching 50 MB for a full-featured instal. The Internet and Macs with open firmware boot ROMs were hitting it big around this time, hence the changes.
Mac OS 8.6 introduced a brand new nanokernel; version 8.6.1 is probably the best classic Mac OS to run on a legacy PPC machine if you have enough RAM to spare.
FYI, version 8.5 was the first version of the Mac OS to not run on a 68k. Also, there was never an 8.6.1. It went 8.0, 8.1, 8.5, 8.5.1, and 8.6, and then on to 9.
FYI, version 8.5 was the first version of the Mac OS to not run on a 68k. Also, there was never an 8.6.1. It went 8.0, 8.1, 8.5, 8.5.1, and 8.6, and then on to 9.
Weird... I was certain there was an 8.6.1. Thanks for the correction.
And the LC520 someone suggested he put OS 8 on (the original computer of discussion) has a 25 MHz 68030. Which is a 68k.
Wow... I think you need to reread this thread. The original computer in question is a Performa 6200CD with a broken install of OS8.1 on it. It was compared to a LC520 with System 7.5.5.
Comments
Originally posted by Splinemodel
Last I checked, Apple gave away 7.5.5 as a download for free.
Anyway, you should keep 8.1 Accelerate Your Mac claims that it's faster and more stable than 7.6, which is faster and more stable than 7.5.5
Interesting you say that...
While I like OS 8.X (8.6 ROCKS) this Performa that I'm working with seems to be a bit sluggish when working with OS 8.1... Hell just typing in Word makes a 486 feel faster. I never understood why, it has the cache upgrade and it has it's ram maxed out (64 megs) and we put a speedy 20gig drive in it... but nothing helped. Low End Mac describes it as a "road Apple" and I have to agree... The processer can not be upgraded, it is pre Open Firmware so Linux is out of the question (
It went down about a month ago... so I slapped a monitor on her and only got the disk avec "?"... my first thought was that the drive called it quits... but when I tested the drive in my Linux box all was well... So I backed up the files from the drive (thank you HFS support) and put it back in the Performa for a fresh install. This is where I stand.
I lost the system CD many moves ago. (I have moved 9 times in my life)
So any other ideas would be great...
Maybe someone wants to tell me why this model is so slow? (Performa 6200CD)
Originally posted by \\/\\/ickes
Maybe someone wants to tell me why this model is so slow? (Performa 6200CD)
http://www.lowendmac.com/roadapples/x200.shtml
You mentioned the Low End Mac "Road Apple" designation. This is an explanation of why they called it a Road Apple.
Here's another link at Low End Mac, which goes into greater detail: http://www.lowendmac.com/tech/x200.shtml
There's also this:
"Something rotten in the Kingdom of Cupertino". This was the pits. Dreadful, terrible, bastardized, appalling amalgam of stuff from Apple's parts bin. A 64-bit PPC processor on a 32-bit bus meant the CPU ran at half the clock speed. The mobo was made up of some many variants of bits and pieces that everything ran at a different speed. Even the ROM was full of bugs. It's amazing it even bothered getting up in the morning (it often didn't).
Oh, and the modem port didn't support hardware handshaking, so you were reduced to internet speeds of an out-of-condition snail. The 5200 was an all-in-one (i.e. with a monitor), but its interior brought dishonor to the illustrious breed. There was even humorously-named 'Director's Edition', which was all black, had a TV tuner, a black keyboard and mouse (now highly sought after - they're worth more than the Mac. Seriously) and cost about $US2,500 over here in Oz. Australian MacWorld, clearly without consulting head office, made the hysterically-funny decision to give it a MacWorld 'Best System' award in 1996, citing its 'comprehensive approach to multimedia' and saying that 'after all, everyone in the office wants one'. Why, precisely? As a big, black paperweight? An abstract Mac sculpture, perhaps? If you dropped 2-and-a-half grand on this baby, I actually pity you. If you bought a PC after that, I empathise. When Guy Kawasaki said he'd 'never met a Mac he didn't like', he'd obviously never been trapped in a dark alley late at night with a Performa 5300.
Taken from an article here.
Originally posted by KeilwerthReborn
All of the 8's are quite slow on 68k processors.
7.6.1 is the best OS in the 7 series, using about 7 MB of RAM. Next up the ladder is 8.1, using around 21 MB, and introducing HFS+ extended format. Then 9.1 at 70 MB, then 10.3 at 256 MB or higher. I started with OS 1.1 in 1987 on a Mac with no HD, and I think that 7.5.3 and 7.5.5 were the most unstable Mac operating systems ever released. YMMV
The only major problem I ever had was du to a extention mismatch back when my family got its first LC. But that was fixed quickly.
Anyway... someone is going to send me a bootable CD so I might have this thing licked. I will update as things progress.
Originally posted by guest
Stay away from OS 7.5.5, it is the crash king. Every Mac I put 7.5.5 on would crash, usually in under 20 minutes. OS 7.5.3 is in second place, and 9.0.4 is third worse.
7.6.1 is the best OS in the 7 series, using about 7 MB of RAM. Next up the ladder is 8.1, using around 21 MB, and introducing HFS+ extended format. Then 9.1 at 70 MB, then 10.3 at 256 MB or higher. I started with OS 1.1 in 1987 on a Mac with no HD, and I think that 7.5.3 and 7.5.5 were the most unstable Mac operating systems ever released. YMMV
I used OS 8.1 quite regularly on a 603e system with 32 MB of RAM, and it never used up more than about 12 MB. YMMV, of course. As far as the core system components and extensions are concerned, it wasn't too different than System 7.6.
Mac OS 8.5 had a lot more PPC optimisations than did previous versions, along with some interface refinements and a few more features. It also gobbles up a lot more memory, approaching 50 MB for a full-featured instal. The Internet and Macs with open firmware boot ROMs were hitting it big around this time, hence the changes.
Mac OS 8.6 introduced a brand new nanokernel; version 8.6.1 is probably the best classic Mac OS to run on a legacy PPC machine if you have enough RAM to spare.
Originally posted by Daver
I used OS 8.1 quite regularly on a 603e system with 32 MB of RAM, and it never used up more than about 12 MB. YMMV, of course. As far as the core system components and extensions are concerned, it wasn't too different than System 7.6.
Mac OS 8.5 had a lot more PPC optimisations than did previous versions, along with some interface refinements and a few more features. It also gobbles up a lot more memory, approaching 50 MB for a full-featured instal. The Internet and Macs with open firmware boot ROMs were hitting it big around this time, hence the changes.
Mac OS 8.6 introduced a brand new nanokernel; version 8.6.1 is probably the best classic Mac OS to run on a legacy PPC machine if you have enough RAM to spare.
FYI, version 8.5 was the first version of the Mac OS to not run on a 68k. Also, there was never an 8.6.1. It went 8.0, 8.1, 8.5, 8.5.1, and 8.6, and then on to 9.
Originally posted by Luca Rescigno
FYI, version 8.5 was the first version of the Mac OS to not run on a 68k. Also, there was never an 8.6.1. It went 8.0, 8.1, 8.5, 8.5.1, and 8.6, and then on to 9.
Weird... I was certain there was an 8.6.1. Thanks for the correction.
Originally posted by \\/\\/ickes
And the LC520 someone suggested he put OS 8 on (the original computer of discussion) has a 25 MHz 68030. Which is a 68k.
Originally posted by KeilwerthReborn
And the LC520 someone suggested he put OS 8 on (the original computer of discussion) has a 25 MHz 68030. Which is a 68k.
Wow... I think you need to reread this thread. The original computer in question is a Performa 6200CD with a broken install of OS8.1 on it. It was compared to a LC520 with System 7.5.5.
Anyway...
Mea culpa.