Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Mechcozmo

macrumors 603
Jul 17, 2004
5,215
2
5300cs said:
I just found this little gem, too. Someone patched the iTunes installer (ver 1) so that it can install on OS 8.6. I just might give it a try :)

Link here: http://www.wormintheapple.gr/downloads/

I saw that too, but didn't try it. Not that much room on the Hard Drive, and it is for a guest computer...not a media player. And there is always Quicktime but the newest version fails to instal! :eek:
 

celaurie

macrumors 6502a
Mar 2, 2003
628
148
Scotland, UK.
MacTracker's Input...

 

Attachments

  • kanga.jpg
    kanga.jpg
    65.3 KB · Views: 167

racepres

macrumors member
Sep 1, 2004
50
0
central Michigan
Mechcozmo: Thanks for the info I will fool w/ it while I watch the game today..5300cs is itunes useable for stuff like my son's yepp mp3?? (obviously I aint into tunes!! More on the subject.. Just the other day I brought home a 8600 ppc ( couldn't resist the price w/ great multiscan monitor, zip, cdrw, and 256MB RAM). it had OS 9.1 in it and I thought it was gonna be way cool!! OOps .. I hate it, maybe i'm just too old to understand it all but in this case OS 8.6 is for me. Faster, easier, smaller... Spent a bit of time starting over last nite and now I'm a very happy (8.6) guy.. P.S. I also started w/6.0 and an SE, then a couple performas w/ 7.5.3 which I still have and like em but I'm gonna try to put 8.1 on one of em this winter just to experiment.. Later, the game's on.. :cool: :cool:
 

5300cs

macrumors 68000
Original poster
Nov 24, 2002
1,862
0
japan
In my experience (notice the my) these have been the best OSes for me in terms of stability:

6.0.8
7.1
7.5.3 and 7.5.5
8.1
8.6

And that's about it. I've had the different 9.Xs all flake out on me for one reason or another. I haven't used 7.6 enough to really comment on it.
Almost everyone I've ever met has had something bad to say about OS 7 (the different variants) but as I said before, I never had any problems. I know a lot of old System 6 people didn't like 7 when it first hit the scene because it was built with C (or C++?) as opposed to Assembly, thus making it slower.

Macs R Us > How does 10.2 run on a Kanga? Slow I'd imagine :confused: :(
 

Jimong5

macrumors 6502
Jul 22, 2002
296
0
5300cs said:
Macs R Us > How does 10.2 run on a Kanga? Slow I'd imagine :confused: :(

OSX isnt even supported on a kanga, and thats one reason I personally would not buy one. I have a Pismo, which is newer and more expensive, but a very capable OSX mac. G3s still have a lot of life for basic things. even so, the highest a kanga can run is 9.1.
 

racepres

macrumors member
Sep 1, 2004
50
0
central Michigan
And my dog might be littler than your dog but my dad can whip your dad!!!
Pismo's are way cool but still g3's ... Why not run whatever ya can??? Cause again back on subject 8.6 is the bomb if ya aint got ... can't use... X. Wonder how 8.6 performs on a pismo???:eek:
 

5300cs

macrumors 68000
Original poster
Nov 24, 2002
1,862
0
japan
Jimong5 said:
OSX isnt even supported on a kanga, and thats one reason I personally would not buy one.... even so, the highest a kanga can run is 9.1.

Ah! Not so :) With XPostFacto, one can install OS X. I wouldn't wantto, but it can be done. It's not officially supported by Apple though, so if you do do it, you're on your own.
 
5300cs said:
Macs R Us > How does 10.2 run on a Kanga? Slow I'd imagine :confused: :(

Well before mine broke it had 10.2... Now OS 10.1 was an easy hack, but the 10.2 needed about 1.32 Hours of my time.... But it worked (not the laptop now :rolleyes: )... It can be done... Mine had 160mb Ram and the 5gig so with out the 160 or 144 DON't[B/] do it... Thats all I know...
 

Jimong5

macrumors 6502
Jul 22, 2002
296
0
5300cs said:
Ah! Not so :) With XPostFacto, one can install OS X. I wouldn't wantto, but it can be done. It's not officially supported by Apple though, so if you do do it, you're on your own.
I know it could be done, but since a bondi runs X about as fast as a 3 legged cat on valum, It probably woulnt be any better on a slower portable

racepres said:
And my dog might be littler than your dog but my dad can whip your dad!!!
Pismo's are way cool but still g3's ... Why not run whatever ya can??? Cause again back on subject 8.6 is the bomb if ya aint got ... can't use... X. Wonder how 8.6 performs on a pismo???:eek:

well, I have a dual G4 tower too, but thats not really relevant. in terms of old G3s, I was just saying there were better models he could have gotten I guess, and saying what I personally would do. and a pismo wouldn't run 8.6, because it shipped with 9.0.2. thats about all i know mac wise, as that was my earliest mac OS, and had bad times on school computers running OS 8. but those are school computers.
 

racepres

macrumors member
Sep 1, 2004
50
0
central Michigan
:rolleyes: I am definitely gonna have a Pismo very soon... and since alot of work has been done to hack OS9.x and OSX onto old stuff I am determined to try OS8.6 on the pismo.Why ???? cause ??? Well if a Kanga runs well w/ 9 but slow w/ X then perhaps a machine that runs good w X , should fly w/ 8.6!!! :eek: And 8.6 has everything I need right now anyway, Heck it has stuff old guys like me can't pronounce let alone use!!! Course I gotta get the Pismo first.... Hhhhhhhmmmmmmm. :( Maybe I'll have to stick to trying to put 8.1 on the performa and powerbook 160!!!! LOL... Later MV
 

macfreek57

macrumors 6502
Jan 1, 2002
379
0
Baton Rouge, Louisiana
it works…

5300cs said:
I just found this little gem, too. Someone patched the iTunes installer (ver 1) so that it can install on OS 8.6. I just might give it a try :)

Link here: http://www.wormintheapple.gr/downloads/


i've used that on my grandfather's 233 iMac with 8.6 and it worked fine

by the way, sys 7.6.5 rocks my socks! i love that old piece of crap! a full install was like less than 400 Mb! and it had great operability.

but seriously, if you're going to use 9.x then i would definitely go through all those dumb extensions (and some CP's) to get some processor efficiency. especially the millions of video drivers. just find the one you have and disable the rest.
also, sherlock 1 and 2 SUCKED! i'd delete it and see if i couldn't get a better search app off of versiontracker.com.
 

Mechcozmo

macrumors 603
Jul 17, 2004
5,215
2
macfreek57 said:
i've used that on my grandfather's 233 iMac with 8.6 and it worked fine

by the way, sys 7.6.5 rocks my socks! i love that old piece of crap! a full install was like less than 400 Mb! and it had great operability.

I emulate on my PowerBook WinXP (boo!), but that emulates 7.5.5 via Basilisk II. Here is a screen shot.
attachment.php


System 7.x.x was fine, but OS 8 was where I really learned a lot of the stuff I know now about Macs...
 

Attachments

  • Emulation!.jpg
    Emulation!.jpg
    87.8 KB · Views: 427

5300cs

macrumors 68000
Original poster
Nov 24, 2002
1,862
0
japan
Nice! Gotta love cross-platform emulation :)

My original iBook had 9.2.2 on it, which wasn't the most stable. I downgraded to 9.1 which was a little bit better, but not much. One day it froze on me about 3 times in 5 minutes, so I install 10.1. Haven't had any problems since.

I agree, 9.x kinda blows (well, blew.)
 

Lord Blackadder

macrumors P6
May 7, 2004
15,662
5,496
Sod off
My old Quadra 610 had OS 7.1, which I still think was the fastest and most stable OS in its own time that Apple has made. 7.6 runs great on first-gen PowerMacs like my 6100/66. My Rev. C (G3 266) iMac was happiest with OS 8.6, so I'd bet that you should try that.
 

bousozoku

Moderator emeritus
Jun 25, 2002
15,602
1,759
Lard
FelixDerKater said:
7.1, 7.5.3, and 8.1 were all the best up to their time.

I'm surprised to hear that anyone liked 7.5.3 and there are two of you? For me, it was the biggest pain of all. 7.5.5 was somewhat stable but it wasn't until 7.6.x that things actually started to work. 8.x was great, except for speed, especially with the addition of strong Carbon support with 8.6.
 

Mechcozmo

macrumors 603
Jul 17, 2004
5,215
2
bousozoku said:
8.x was great, except for speed, especially with the addition of strong Carbon support with 8.6.

What were the minimum requirements for OS 8 and System 7?
 

mms

macrumors 6502a
Oct 8, 2003
784
0
CA
Ah, the Kanga. I remember those.

IIRC the first PowerBook to support Panther is the Lombard, which came after the entire Wall Street series, which came after the original G3 PowerBook (the Kanga). I don't think any of the older versions of OS X were supported either.

Another vote for 8.6, by the way. Still have a PowerMac 6400/180 running it and it works just fine.
 

bousozoku

Moderator emeritus
Jun 25, 2002
15,602
1,759
Lard
Mechcozmo said:
What were the minimum requirements for OS 8 and System 7?

For Mac OS 8.0 any 68030 or greater, I believe and Mac OS 8.1, any 68040 or greater.

I believe that System 7 ran on all systems from the Macintosh Plus or greater, but not the 128K or 512K systems.

I don't mind being wrong, but that is what I remember. I can pull the documentation on Mac OS 8. It should be in the other room.
 

Mechcozmo

macrumors 603
Jul 17, 2004
5,215
2
bousozoku said:
For Mac OS 8.0 any 68030 or greater, I believe and Mac OS 8.1, any 68040 or greater.

I believe that System 7 ran on all systems from the Macintosh Plus or greater, but not the 128K or 512K systems.

I don't mind being wrong, but that is what I remember. I can pull the documentation on Mac OS 8. It should be in the other room.

Thats fine. I wanted to have a general idea on where they stood, for comparing my computer to it (225 PowerTower Pro). Amazingly enough, 15 minutes on google and I couldn't find it...
 

bousozoku

Moderator emeritus
Jun 25, 2002
15,602
1,759
Lard
Mechcozmo said:
Thats fine. I wanted to have a general idea on where they stood, for comparing my computer to it (225 PowerTower Pro). Amazingly enough, 15 minutes on google and I couldn't find it...

I have a 225 MHz 604e (probably the same card) in my PowerCenter and if you're asking what runs well on it, Mac OS 8.6 ran much better than 9.x. The minimum for a (PCI) PowerPC machine was 7.5.2 and it was extremely rough, so I would not suggest anything earlier than 7.6.1.
 

Anacondan

macrumors newbie
Oct 3, 2004
15
0
MT
iindigo said:
Personally I loved Mac OS 8.1... I ran it on a Performa 6400/200, 200 Mhz and it was actually enjoyable - Fast, simple, and very stable for a pre-X Mac OS. I'd suggest that. If you really need app compatiblity, put 8.6 on it.

I vote for 8.1 as well as that was the sys I used for the last few years. Of course I don't have an opinion on any later systems as I jumped them to 10.3. Wow..talk about time travel. :) Did you know this thing comes with a terminal? I'm still learning what it does, but it seems to be doing something :eek:
 

5300cs

macrumors 68000
Original poster
Nov 24, 2002
1,862
0
japan
That's cool :) I love hearing stories about people who've used the same platform (notebook, OS, organizer) for such a long time. It reminds me how I can't do the same :rolleyes:

8.1 to 10.3 is a big jump, but I'm sure you'll enjoy it.
 

5300cs

macrumors 68000
Original poster
Nov 24, 2002
1,862
0
japan
Mechcozmo said:
I emulate on my PowerBook WinXP...

Now that I look at that closer, that looks painful. You're a brave person to emu XP on a G4. Even with the new VPC on my G5 it's bad.


Am installing 8.6 on my Kanga now...
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.