FW800 with Mac OS9

Discussion in 'macOS' started by maskedman, Jan 21, 2007.

  1. maskedman macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    May 24, 2001
    Location:
    LA, CA.
    #1
    FW800 with Mac OS9

    Does OS9 always treat FW800 as FW400?

    PowerMac G4/466 AGP (Single Processor)
    FireWire 800 requires OS 10.2.3 or above (10.2.5 highly recommended).
    Under OS 9.x - 10.2.2 FireWire 800 will function as normal FireWire 400

    So it is correct to assume, " if i am going to use a G4/466, running OS9.2.2 that there is no need to buy a FW800 Card or upgrade to a G4/1.25 w/ built in FW800 because OS9 will not utilize the high FW800 speed" ???
     
  2. Lovesong macrumors 65816

    Lovesong

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2006
    Location:
    Stuck beween a rock and a hard place
    #2
    That would be a correct assumption. Also, the 1.25 will not dual-boot anyway.
     
  3. Eidorian macrumors Penryn

    Eidorian

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2005
    Location:
    Indianapolis
    #3
    OS 9 has limited driver support for newer hardware. Secondly, you can't boot OS9 onto a FW800 machine.
     
  4. Lovesong macrumors 65816

    Lovesong

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2006
    Location:
    Stuck beween a rock and a hard place
    #4
    That would be a correct assumption. Also, the 1.25 will not dual-boot anyway.

    I think you should post this on every forum...I mean every single one of them.
     
  5. maskedman thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    May 24, 2001
    Location:
    LA, CA.
    #5
    the G4/1.25Ghz will not dual-boot. is the G4/1Ghz the last Dual Boot machine ???

    So what is the fastest CPU that will run OS9.2.2 ??? (i use the G5 for OSX)

    G4/466 OS9.2.2 Pro Tools v5.1.1 TDM Mix Plus

    So, correct me if i'm wrong:
    the only advantage to having a faster CPU ( G4/1Ghz, 1.25Ghz, 1.42Ghz ) in this situation would be for the Display Graphics the handling of RTAS Plugin processing and Audio track Management?
    I'm referring to a mixing project using (1) Mix Core and (4) Mix Farm cards and 60% to 70% of the CPU for RTAS Plugins.
    the system will be running at full tilt with all the plugins it can handle and approximately 72 Audio Track from (2 to 4) different FW800 drives connected to (2) FW400 ports on the CPU.
     
  6. Eidorian macrumors Penryn

    Eidorian

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2005
    Location:
    Indianapolis
    #6
    The 2003 Dual 1.25 GHz G4 is the last OS 9 booting machine.
     
  7. MisterMe macrumors G4

    MisterMe

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2002
    Location:
    USA
    #7
    Yes. It is the 1.42 GHz G4 that won't dual-boot. Apple actually returned the 1.25 GHz G4 to its inventory for those users who needed dual-boot capability.
     
  8. maskedman thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    May 24, 2001
    Location:
    LA, CA.
    #8
    G4/1.25Ghz " IS " a Dual Boot Machine

    Thanks Eidorian & MisterMe,

    i was confident the 1.25Ghz was Dual Boot and unsure regarding the 1.42Ghz.

    And there is "NO" reason to use FW800 with OS9, correct?

    the SCSI burst rate for this setup is (20/10) w/ 10k & 7200 rpm drives.
    20Mb per sec for Ultrawide (68pin) drives
    10Mb per sec for Narrow (50pin) drives

    FireWire burst rate: ???
    400 = ??? Mb per sec
    800 = ??? Mb per sec
     
  9. Eidorian macrumors Penryn

    Eidorian

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2005
    Location:
    Indianapolis
    #9
    That is correct.
     
  10. maskedman thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    May 24, 2001
    Location:
    LA, CA.
    #10
    Fastest OS9 CPU

    do you have any idea how i may benefit from have a fast CPU like the 1.25Ghz vs. the 466Ghz ???

    1. Screen redraws, Screen graphics etc.
    2. RTAS plugin Processing
    3. Audio files are handled by the Pro Tools PCI card so i don't know if there would be any
     
  11. maskedman thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    May 24, 2001
    Location:
    LA, CA.
    #11
    Dual Boot G4's

    So if the Dual Boot G4's (OSX & OS9) 1Ghz and 1.25 Ghz do Not have a built-in FW800 port, how could i be using a Quicksilver that does? realizing, of course, the FW800 port functions at FW400 speeds when used with OS9.
    It must have been a custom order at the time, correct?
     
  12. Eidorian macrumors Penryn

    Eidorian

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2005
    Location:
    Indianapolis
    #12
    You can install your own third party PCI FireWire 800 card. You'd saturate the bus rather quickly with one though.
     
  13. maskedman thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    May 24, 2001
    Location:
    LA, CA.
    #13
    in my situation FW800 would only help with data transfer. My PCI Card can only handle 20MBps

    Interface speeds [Mbit/s] [MB/s]
    Firewire 400 (IE 1394) 400 Mbit/s 50 MB/s
    Firewire 800 (IE 1394b) 800 Mbit/s 100 MB/s
     
  14. Eidorian macrumors Penryn

    Eidorian

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2005
    Location:
    Indianapolis
    #14
    If you just need more FireWire ports or specifically FireWire 800, just get the PCI card then.
     
  15. RacerX macrumors 65832

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2004
    #15
    So no one gets too confused while reading this interesting thread, lets make some clear boundaries...

    Last PowerMac production models to be Mac OS 9 bootable:Not to be confused with the following Mac OS X only models:Hopefully that'll help anyone wondering which systems can boot into Mac OS 9... none of which had Firewire 800 built into them.
     
  16. Sun Baked macrumors G5

    Sun Baked

    Joined:
    May 19, 2002
    #16
    Basically, OS 9 needed ROM upgrades (that silly ROM file in the System folder) and System upgrades to support new hardware.

    Apple froze OS 9 and classic long before they killed off OS 9 booting on the Macs. So it was frozen as a FW400 machine.

    So the only way to get FW800 working under OS 9 is via a 3rd party extensions, or a hack.
     
  17. maskedman thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    May 24, 2001
    Location:
    LA, CA.
    #17
    FW800 with Mac OS9

    are these extension still available?
     
  18. Sun Baked macrumors G5

    Sun Baked

    Joined:
    May 19, 2002
    #18
    Don't know if anyone even bothered writing one ... since OS X 10.2 was already out by that time.

    And most card makers had already dropped OS 9 legacy support.

    Which leaves a hack, or custom driver.

    Plus, at that time they had a crapload of other FW issues to deal with at that time with FW800, and later under OS X 10.3
     
  19. Nermal Moderator

    Nermal

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2002
    Location:
    New Zealand
    #19
    That particular model could also be built to order with dual 1.25 or dual 1.42 GHz G4s. It still used FW 400 and could boot OS 9. Also, if I recall correctly, it was sold from June.
     
  20. RacerX macrumors 65832

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2004
    #20
    Apple lists the introduction date (January 28, 2003) as the same as the PowerMac G4 (Firewire 800)... this was because none of those systems (G4/1 GHz, Dual G4/1.25 GHz, Dual G4/1.42 GHz) could be booted into Mac OS 9.

    More over, Apple didn't provide any build-to-order options for the 9-bootable G4/1.25 GHz. You got strictly what Apple was offering (and even then, it wasn't easy to even find where Apple was selling this system on their site). The only Mac OS 9 bootable Dual G4/1.25 GHz systems were the previous top of the line Mirrored Drive Doors systems (which were discontinued when these systems were being sold) and Apple never sold a Dual G4/1.42 GHz that could boot Mac OS 9.

    I'm sure that if you go back and look at people's reactions back then (most likely including posts on this very site) you'll see how unhappy people were that they were restricted to that model for Mac OS 9 systems. The graphics community was the most vocal as I don't believe a Mac OS X native version of QuarkXPress was out yet, and you had to choose between getting a really fast Mac or a Mac that could boot Mac OS 9.

    What I listed before... both in models and limitations, are all that there was back then. I was doing the same job then as I do today, provide advice, consulting and service to graphics design professionals. I had many discussions on this very topic during that period... one of my clients bought the 15" PowerBook G4 1 GHz at that point because it was still able to boot into Mac OS 9 (the 12' and 17" systems Apple had just introduced were Mac OS X only).
     
  21. Nermal Moderator

    Nermal

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2002
    Location:
    New Zealand
    #21
    I bought one, you could definitely build to order. You could change the CPU, upgrade to 2 GB RAM, add a SuperDrive, upgrade the hard drives, swap the video card for the GF4, and probably some other stuff. I upgraded the hard drive and added a SuperDrive, but couldn't justify the CPU upgrade. And yes, it did run OS 9.

    Edit: Specs from EveryMac.
     
  22. RacerX macrumors 65832

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2004
    #22
    Lets look at a quote from that site...
    "It was released on June 23, 2003 along with the original Power Macintosh G5 models and discontinued on June 9, 2004 when the Power Macintosh G5 (June 2004) series was introduced."
    If we are to assume this site is accurate in it's information, then Apple didn't sell a single Mac OS 9 bootable PowerMac from January 28, 2003 until June 23, 2003.

    Not only does this differ from what Apple says... far more importantly, it differs from the history of what happened.

    Further, I surely don't recall Apple providing processor options... if you wanted options, you bought the current (Mac OS X only) PowerMac G4s, if you wanted Mac OS 9, you got what Apple was willing to make available. Apple specifically didn't want these systems to directly compete with the current line up. Mac OS 9 was dead and they weren't going to go too much out of their way with these systems.

    Drive options and memory options... those aren't hard to believe (and don't really effect production), video card options is stretching it a bit (and the GeForce4 would be a down-grade) and processor options (specially a dual 1.42 GHz option) was fully outside of what Apple was willing to do back then.

    Correct me if I am wrong here, but aren't you saying that you have a PowerMac G4 MDD with a single processor at 1.25 GHz that can boot Mac OS 9... and isn't that exactly what I said Apple was selling?

    If you had a Dual G4 1.42 that booted Mac OS 9... I'd be eating my words (happily). And I could have missed the specs for the PowerMac G4 MMD (June 2003) when looking for PowerMac specs, so pointing out that one (which has both processor and video card options) would be a good way to prove your point.

    But for the sake of keeping people from performing wild goose chases, lets stick with what can be pretty firmly established (by Apple no less).
     
  23. maskedman thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    May 24, 2001
    Location:
    LA, CA.
    #23
    Dual Boot G4's

    thanks for the help!

    The way i understand it:
    there never was a Dual Boot (OSX/OS9) G4/1.42Ghz

    the last Dual Boot machine was a G4/1.0Ghz
    the G4/1.5Ghz was initially released as the first OSX only machine
    then in 2003 the G4/1.25Ghz was rereleased with Dual Boot capability

    correct ???
     
  24. Sun Baked macrumors G5

    Sun Baked

    Joined:
    May 19, 2002
    #24
    The Rev. A MDD machine had dual boot capability.

    The Rev. B MDD machine added FW800 and moved USB to the PCI bus didn't boot OS 9.

    After canceling the short lived Rev. B MDD, Apple rereleased the Rev. A MDD machine as the Legacy OS 9 Machine.

    Basically any Tower with FW800 won't boot OS 9, the other machines killed off OS 9 with the addition of DDR memory.

    The eMac is the odd duck which shipped a batch of non-OS 9 machines right before the switch from its old PowerMac chipset to the iMac DDR chipset.
     
  25. maskedman thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    May 24, 2001
    Location:
    LA, CA.
    #25
    Dual Boot G4's

    Ah yes, it's all very clear when you know what to look for.
    Thank you very much.

    Dual Boot / FW400 only:
    Apple Power Macintosh G4 1.0 DP (MDD) Specs (M8689LL/A)
    Apple Power Macintosh G4 1.25 DP (MDD) Specs (M8573LL/A)
    Apple Power Macintosh G4 1.25 (MDD 2003) Specs (M9145LL/A)

    OSX only w/FW800:
    Apple Power Macintosh G4 1.0 (FW 800) Specs (M8839LL/A)
    Apple Power Macintosh G4 1.25 DP (FW 800) Specs (M8840LL/A)

    The Machine I'm using is Dual Boot QS G4/933 with a built-in FW800 port.
    Apple Power Macintosh G4 933 (QS 2002) Specs (M8666LL/A)
    other than this machine being a "custom order", how would you explain it?
    wasn't it a little early for FW800?

    This, by the way, is what has caused so much confusion.
     

Share This Page