Am I in the right place?

[eyoungren]

You can resolve the ADC to DVI problem with a simple passive adapter like this:

View attachment 920119​

​

Going from a DVI output to an ADC display is a bigger problem, and requires a converter box with external power. But going from an ADC output to a DVI display is much simpler and only requires something similar to what you see above. Sounds like that's all you'd need, and you could use one of those even with the Rage 128 card you have now.

Adapter cables like that one can be hard to find, but they're usually not all that expensive. Check eBay, they turn up periodically. One of these would work with the Radeon 9000 card I suggested, and any other ADC-equipped card.

I have one of those adapters. It never worked on the one ADC card I had in my QS. I got it with the G5 my former boss bought and it worked on that Mac. I think there is something else you need to convert ADC to DVI on an ADC compatible G4. But if you have it working on one of those then maybe it was just my own QS. I wouldn't be surprised to find out it was specific to that model - again.

 

[Raging Dufus]

I have one of those adapters. It never worked on the one ADC card I had in my QS. I got it with the G5 my former boss bought and it worked on that Mac. I think there is something else you need to convert ADC to DVI on an ADC compatible G4. But if you have it working on one of those then maybe it was just my own QS. I wouldn't be surprised to find out it was specific to that model - again.

The pictures one has worked reliably for me for years. It's just some off-brand, not Apple. Quality is hit & miss it seems.

 

[Amethyst1]

the GeForce FX5200, which technically supports Core Image but doesn't do so very well.

PowerBook G4 12" / FX 5200 Core Image Ambiguity.

I was perusing Apple Developer tech notes from 2005 and came across the following clarification about the GPU acceleration on the PB 12" (1Ghz+) and 2003-2004 G5 stock FX 5200 GPU. I ran some of my own non-scientific tests with Core Image and OpenGL and my results on a PowerBook G4 12" 1.5Ghz...

forums.macrumors.com

Add to that the cr@ppy tmds transmitters on non-Apple cards that make high rez's over dvi impossible, this thing should be avoided imho.

 

[Raging Dufus]

Ok so here's what I found:

Machine Name: PowerMac G4
Machine Model: PowerMac3,3
CPU Type: PowerPC G4 (2.9)
Number of CPUs: 2
CPU Speed: 450mhz
L2 Cache(per CPU): 1mb
Memory: 2GB
Bus Speed: 100mhz
Boot ROM Version: 3.3.4f1
Serial Number: XA1030DHJ3C
Sales Order Number: M7892LL/A

So after reading through that site I've figured I don't need a CI supporting card badly enough(it doesn't seem like there IS one that works off-the-shelf; only possible through modding/flashing).

The ADC to DVI adapter looks easy to find. Since I don't own an ADC display I don't really need to adapt an outside source to it I'll definitely grab an adapter.

On my quest for a graphics card, it seems I can't post links yet but I have 2 candidates. One is listed as " ATI Radeon 9000 Mac Edition 64MB Graphics Card For Mac G4" but doesn't have any details, so unsure if it'll work in mind. THe other is the aforementioned "working pull" from the next generation down. Not sure which one to pull the trigger on.

@hunterjwizzard your machine is definitely a Mystic a.k.a. Gigabit Ethernet Power Mac G4. Looks like it's been updated to the latest firmware, which is good. You can find specs and other info at the following links:

Power Macintosh G4 450 DP (Gigabit) Specs (Gigabit Ethernet, M7892LL/A, PowerMac3,3, M5183, 1864): EveryMac.com

Technical specifications for the Power Macintosh G4 450 DP (Gigabit). Dates sold, processor type, memory info, hard drive details, price and more.

everymac.com

​

Mystic Power Mac G4

Claiming “two brains are better than one,” Apple introduced the first dual processor Power Macs since the 9600MP, which had two 200 MHz 604e processors. Although Mac OS 9 has some multi…

lowendmac.com

​

 

[bobesch]

Welcome to the forum!
Why not simply start with os9/Tiger&Classic dual-boot, Classical(os9)/TenFourFox(Tiger) and that whole bunch of software coming from Macintoshgarden and other valuable sources
and have fun with the PowerMac in it's native state without any major (graphic-card) tinkering ...
No reason to push that old guy beyond it's limits. Plenty of >1GHz G4/G5-machines can be found as a substitute for Leopard ...
Leopard is not the goal - I'd really save that PowerMac just for the unique os9/Tiger experience and enjoy the work to make it a full member of your existing windows-network (SMB, FTP, webDAV, VNC, RDP, Screen&FileSharing, IMAP, MSOffice2008Mac etc.), which is very possible, but a nice puzzle and good fun!!

 

[bunnspecial]

Unfortunately, the list of Core Image compatible cards that work in AGP 2x systems is short. The only official Apple option is the rare and expensive Radeon 9700 that came as BTO in some MDD G4s but will work in all G4 systems. Beyond that, some Radeon 9800 Pros(flashed) will work-I have one in a Sawtooth-but don't feel confident saying definitively which will. The 5200 gets you CI support, but is lousy in other areas and for an AGP system, I'd personally much rather use a 6200(I have used a flashed 5200 in PCI systems, but that's a different story as a 6200 can clog the bus).

Apple sometimes has a bad habit of using cards well past their sell-by date, and the Rage 128 is no exception. It stuck around as the standard card through the Digital Audio. Nearly ANY Mac AGP card is better. The Geforce 2MX, 4MX, Radeon 7000, and Radeon 9000 are all plug and play budget options. None have CI support, but do at least give you Quartz Extreme(which OS X also uses) and are all readily available. Despite its name, the 4MX is not a lot better than the 2MX. Of these, the Radeon 9000 is the only one usually found with pure DVI(all the others have ADC out, which as discussed above, is DVI but needs an adapter for a conventional DVI cable). I'd look at one of these, as even though you won't get all the OS X potential from them, they will still perk things up a fair bit.

 

[hunterjwizzard]

Welcome to the forum!
Why not simply start with os9/Tiger&Classic dual-boot, Classical(os9)/TenFourFox(Tiger) and that whole bunch of software coming from Macintoshgarden and other valuable sources
and have fun with the PowerMac in it's native state without any major (graphic-card) tinkering ...
No reason to push that old guy beyond it's limits. Plenty of >1GHz G4/G5-machines can be found as a substitute for Leopard ...
Leopard is not the goal - I'd really save that PowerMac just for the unique os9/Tiger experience and enjoy the work to make it a full member of your existing windows-network (SMB, FTP, webDAV, VNC, RDP, Screen&FileSharing, IMAP, MSOffice2008Mac etc.), which is very possible, but a nice puzzle and good fun!!

I do love me some dual-boot systems and since there's really nothing here software-wise its not like I have anything to loose/backup.

Right now I think my top priority is finding a better graphics card. I much appreciate all the advise on that.

If I'm willing to forgo CI support in favor of just something plug and play, what other factors do I need to check to ensure it will work? I found a Radeon 9000 "Mac Edition" on ebay, and while I don't mind the price I'd rather not order it only to find out its not compatible.

 

[bunnspecial]

I found a Radeon 9000 "Mac Edition" on ebay, and while I don't mind the price I'd rather not order it only to find out its not compatible.

AFAIK, all Radeon 9000 Mac Editions have 1 DVI+1 ADC port. They also have the power tab forward of the main AGP fingers to power an ADC display. You won't find this arrangement on any PC cards, as no one but Apple used ADC.

If you desire dual booting OS 9 and OS X, your life is a lot simpler with a good non-CI like a 9000(although the Geforce 4Ti is still best ). The reason for that is that CI cards basically are incompatible with OS 9, so you'd need to swap cards every time you switch OSs.

 

[hunterjwizzard]

I'll definitely go the dual-boot rout, get more capability out of the single system.

I've always been an nvidia snob so I'll be looking for a geforce 4. How rare is the mac version of the Ti? I was able to find a couple geforce 4 MXs on ebay right now, cant decide if I should hold out

 

[bunnspecial]

The 4Ti shows up from time to time. I've had probably 4 or 5 over the years I think. Sometimes they'll pop up in an otherwise non-descript lot-I actually did really well on my first one because I got it with a Radeon 8500 and boxed copies of Call of Duty plus one or two other good Mac games.

It's bar none the best OS 9 card around, and is certainly no slouch in OS X despite not supporting CI. It's my preferred card for dual boot systems, and right now offhand I'm using them both in my dual 1ghz Quicksilver and my crazy DA that's in a rackmount case and has a dual 1.8 Sonnet(I have a few more around in service-that's not a card I leave on the shelf ).

The Mac Edition, there again, is easily IDed by ADC+DVI and has the ADC power tab. Most Mac edition cards you see have several inches of "dead" PCB to allow them to engage the support slots in the case. Supposedly, it was originally offered as a separate purchase card without the extension, and documentation I've seen was adamant about not moving the computer with the card installed. The extra PCB allowed Apple to actually ship the cards installed in systems, and IIRC it was a BTO option on the MDD. All of mine are the extra PCB versions-I only recall seeing one "short" card for sale on Ebay years ago.

One other thing-unless you use an MDD OS 9 installer or the OS 9 Lives universal install, the Radeon 9000 can give you headaches in OS 9.2.1 and 9.2.2. With the card installed, it will boot to the finder and give you a seemingly functional desktop that's otherwise "dead"-you can move the cursor but nothing will "click" or work. You have to track down and install the drivers-after removing the 9000 and installing an earlier card, you need to install the drivers and then reinstall the card. It happens with the 9200 and I think 8500 also. Nvidia cards are 100% plug and play in OS 9 in my experience.

Funny enough, this first "bit" me at work a couple of years ago-we have one very expensive, very specialized scientific instrument that still runs on OS 9. The instrument has some quirks and I've done some bizarre things in my time there to keep it running(like the time we found that a 733mhz Quicksilver was actually incompatible with it, and I "fixed" it by fitting a 466mhz card from a DA). In any case, when I first started helping maintain it, the PI/owner/maintainer asked me if I had a video card that would work and had DVI out to run a 1920x1080 screen. I said sure, so came in the next day and popped a 9000 in it. An hour later, he comes to my office LIVID because the computer was seemingly dead. I researched, found the problem, installed the drivers, and all was good. BTW, I keep a hard drive with what I call the "Wittebort Install" in my office(9.2.2+Radeon drivers+NI interface card extensions+the instrument software) and also have an image of it on my office computer so can create a new one quickly if needed.

The system has been rock-stable now(knock on wood) for a couple of years on a Sawtooth. It actually works better on that than it ever did on a DA/QS. Basically, in a nuclear magnetic resonance(NMR) spectrometer, you take a sample that's in a strong magnetic field, and "pulse" it with a broad-spectrum RF signal appropriate for the nuclei you want to observe and the magnetic field strength(i.e. in the range of 500mhz for hydrogren nuclei in an 11.7T magnetic field). This pulse sets the nuclei spinning, and each of them turns into its own little radio transmitter emitting RF depending on the molecular environment(and that decays over time-say a half second to a couple of seconds depending on a few factors). We collect/measure this decay pattern, called a "free induction decay"(FID) and then do a fourier transform on it to get data that we can read/interpret. When it quit working with a fast computer, we could observe pulses being sent on an oscilloscope, and observe the FID on a second oscilloscope, but the computer wasn't picking up the FID. The best we could figure, the software was designed around about a 233mhz CPU(it as running for a while on a beige G3) and was probably written to expect the FID to return within so many clock cycles rather than a specific amount of time. When the clock speed goes to high, the software "times out" on looking for the FID before it physically has time to get back to the computer. In all of this, though, we'd see weird, sporadic errors sometimes with 133mhz FSB computers, but the 100mhz FSB Sawtooth never gives any of those errors. That's all in the fun of old software that ties operation to clock speed

 

[hunterjwizzard]

right now offhand I'm using them both in my dual 1ghz Quicksilver and my crazy DA that's in a rackmount case and has a dual 1.8 Sonnet

I practically fell out of my chair laughing at this. A rack-mounted Mac? I love it!!!! lol that's quite the impressive system mod, I suppose logically there's no reason it can't be done, but I'd never thought of it before. I'm so used to data centers being Mac-free lol

Then again, there was that one super computer built out of apple's short-lived server product... (yeah I don't know a whole ton about Macs or their history)

(I have a few more around in service-that's not a card I leave on the shelf ).

Funny enough, this first "bit" me at work a couple of years ago-we have one very expensive, very specialized scientific instrument that still runs on OS 9.

So this was a very interesting story and I appreciate you sharing it, I really love things like that. It's again something really unusual to me, because I would never have thought anyone would build a high-tech scientific instrument to run on a Mac. Even back in the OS 9 days, I would have thought linux or a windows running on an intel CPU would be the go-to option. More open development environment; even windows back in the day could be easily modified/changed around whatever you needed(windows 2000, roughly concurrent with OS 9, was so versatile they were using it to run sensor packages built into airliners, among many other diverse functions).

Anyway I always love stories about people going to herculean efforts to keep ancient machines running for some highly specific and vital function. That's the sort of crazy hardware tinkering that keeps me going!



As for your recommendations on cards, all is very much appreciated. I'm going to go ahead and pull the trigger on a non-Ti card just so I have something better than the stock rage128 for now. I'll be watching the skies for the clearly superior card at some future date.

So just based on what you're saying, it sounds like I could go ahead and start working on the dual-boot conversion now, and the machine won't have any problems accepting the new graphics card somewhere down the line?

 

[bunnspecial]

I practically fell out of my chair laughing at this. A rack-mounted Mac? I love it!!!! lol that's quite the impressive system mod, I suppose logically there's no reason it can't be done, but I'd never thought of it before. I'm so used to data centers being Mac-free lol

Then again, there was that one super computer built out of apple's short-lived server product... (yeah I don't know a whole ton about Macs or their history)

(I have a few more around in service-that's not a card I leave on the shelf ).



So this was a very interesting story and I appreciate you sharing it, I really love things like that. It's again something really unusual to me, because I would never have thought anyone would build a high-tech scientific instrument to run on a Mac. Even back in the OS 9 days, I would have thought linux or a windows running on an intel CPU would be the go-to option. More open development environment; even windows back in the day could be easily modified/changed around whatever you needed(windows 2000, roughly concurrent with OS 9, was so versatile they were using it to run sensor packages built into airliners, among many other diverse functions).

Anyway I always love stories about people going to herculean efforts to keep ancient machines running for some highly specific and vital function. That's the sort of crazy hardware tinkering that keeps me going!



As for your recommendations on cards, all is very much appreciated. I'm going to go ahead and pull the trigger on a non-Ti card just so I have something better than the stock rage128 for now. I'll be watching the skies for the clearly superior card at some future date.

So just based on what you're saying, it sounds like I could go ahead and start working on the dual-boot conversion now, and the machine won't have any problems accepting the new graphics card somewhere down the line?

I bought that particular system from someone on here. It's a Digital Audio LoBo turned sideways in a 4U Marathon branded rackmount case. I've actually seen the cases in several application-we had labs that had racks full of dual P3 systems in very similar cases, although this particular one was obviously built to hold a Mac. I've been using it as a desktop system for the past several years-the cooling is much better than a stock G4 tower and it has some other benefits like front USB and FW ports.

Macs are no stranger to rack mount, though, even though they don't make anything now. The Xserve was made from about 2002 to 2009, I think. It's a 1U full-length case It went through 2 PPC revisions(G4 and G5) and then 3 Intel revisions. All were similar the towers of a similar generation, but had standard, expected rackmount features like hot-swappable drives. There were also Xserve RAIDS, which were 4U with 14 ATA drives(they're sort of "dumb" devices and need a computer both to tell them what to do and push data over the FiberChannel cables).

VA Tech built a super computer in the mid-2000s. It originally was on G5 towers, but later switched over to Xserve G5s. It was a top-10 Supercomputer at one time.

Most of our scientific equipment at work runs on Windows, but there are exceptions. The new(meaning ~10 years old now) general use NMRs are RHEL using standard Dell workstation towers. At one time, one of them was on a Sun running Solaris, and in ancient history they used proprietary computers. The OS 9 based one is a bit of an anomaly. NMRs as a whole are a small market since they start at a couple hundred grand each and ours run through probably $4-6K of liquid helium a year plus a couple thousand in liquid nitrogen(that's needed if they're sitting idle and unused or used around the clock). Most have become kind of turn-key-they still need someone who knows what they're doing to do the heavy maintenance and set up, but once everything is set up right they're sort of turn key for the end user. The 3 main ones we have are Varian/Agilent and before they went away, they had a huge market share. The TecMag, which is the OS 9 one, was built with a very different customer in mind-basically someone who just wants the bare-bones electronics but who wants to design and build their own probes and so forth rather than just buy one that takes an hour to drop in and tune. It actually started out running in System 7 on a Quadra 700, but has been upgraded over the years. OS 9 is the end of the line in it. All the current TecMag products run on Windows 10, but the guy who runs it I suspect is near retirement and doesn't want to basically have to start from scratch when he can keep his old one going.

 

[hunterjwizzard]

I remember the VA tech super computer, couldn't recall if it had breached the top-ten or not. At the time I was involved in a dual CPU enthusiasts community(2CPU.com, why I bought a dual G4 when the opportunity arose - I'll grab just about anything that's got 2 processors instead of 1!) and I remember some talk of what would happen to the G5 towers when they were replaced with the Xserve G5s. It was hoped they would be resold on the open market, quite a few of us would have liked to own a former piece of that thing(we said the same thing when Asci Red was dismantled).

Its always entertaining to find out how mundane some of these ridiculous machines are at the end. Yes, it takes quarts of liquid gasses, but it still runs on an off-the-shelf desktop.

I'm personally always really interested in the concept of future-proofing. The tech market of course just assumes everything is going to be obsolete in 3 years and never bothers to plan much further than that. But then you have niche roles like your lab where very expensive machines need to run until they die, and cant always upgrade to the latest software.

There's the(probably apocryphal) story of a computer somewhere in a Russian factory, with multiple daisy-chained UPS systems attached to it, because it boots off of a floppy disk that long ago turned to dust and if it ever gets shut down there's no way to start it back up.

 

[Dronecatcher]

Go with the 9000 or 2MX - apart from running GPU benchmarks or playing games, spending extra on beefier cards is a waste.
If you do install Leopard you can turn off most of the GPU hungry GUI effects too.

 

[Amethyst1]

A rack-mounted Mac? I love it!!!!

GVS 9000 Dual 1GHz G4 Review

GVS 9000 Dual 1GHz G4 Review

web.archive.org

 

[hunterjwizzard]

So is there a comprehensive guide to setting up a dual boot? I'm not totally inept but my exposure to these things is low.

The machine currently has a 40gb hd installed. I have several other PATA drives in inventory. If Mac OS dual boots anything like windows and linux, each OS will need their own partition, so i am thinking I may want to install a larger hard drive as part of this process. Will this mac safely take 160gb drives? Will have to look through my hd box and see what I have, unfortunately my last brand new pata drive went into a win2k build a few weeks ago, but i've got plenty of good sized drives with a lot of life left.

 

[eyoungren]

So is there a comprehensive guide to setting up a dual boot? I'm not totally inept but my exposure to these things is low.

The machine currently has a 40gb hd installed. I have several other PATA drives in inventory. If Mac OS dual boots anything like windows and linux, each OS will need their own partition, so i am thinking I may want to install a larger hard drive as part of this process. Will this mac safely take 160gb drives? Will have to look through my hd box and see what I have, unfortunately my last brand new pata drive went into a win2k build a few weeks ago, but i've got plenty of good sized drives with a lot of life left.

I'm not aware of a guide, but probably.

Yes, you will want to partition your drive for each OS you want to install. No, the G4 will not natively see the full 160GB. These early G4s have what's called the large drive limit and that's 128GB.

There are two ways you can get around that: The Speedtools ATA Hi-Cap driver - https://macintoshgarden.org/apps/speedtools-ata-hi-cap-driver or using a PCI-SATA card which allows you to attach SATA drives.

With the later solution, it's just like with video cards. You need either a Mac SATA card or to flash a PC one. Flashing a PC one is easy if you get a card with a SIL-3112 chip. Otherwise, you have to search for Mac compatible cards. Sonnet is the gold standard with their Tempo card.

I've got a 500mhz G4 with a SATA card and I'm running a 250GB boot drive and two 3TB drives off it.

 

[hunterjwizzard]

I'll see what I have on hand. 128gb is probably plenty. I wont be storing lots of pictures and music on there or anything(in fact i won't have any sound at all - that's it's own annoying problem). I'll see what I have in my collection, I always knew hoarding these pata drives would pay off!

 

[eyoungren]

I'll see what I have on hand. 128gb is probably plenty. I wont be storing lots of pictures and music on there or anything(in fact i won't have any sound at all - that's it's own annoying problem). I'll see what I have in my collection, I always knew hoarding these pata drives would pay off!

Just one thing to keep in mind when you partition. You want to partition as APM (Apple Partition Map). If you want to run OS9, you'll need to make sure OS9 drivers are installed. Lastly, format as HFS+ Journaled.

 

[hunterjwizzard]

will i be able to do all that from the os install disk?

I know that for windows at least you need to install the old OS first and on the first partition, and most windows versions can handle laying out all the partitions you'll need.

 

[eyoungren]

will i be able to do all that from the os install disk?

I know that for windows at least you need to install the old OS first and on the first partition, and most windows versions can handle laying out all the partitions you'll need.

If you're using an OS X install disk yes. Not sure about an OS9 install disk.

Once you get past the first screen on the OS X install disk you can go to the Utility Menu and there will be a few apps listed in there. One of those is Disk Utility. That's the app used to format disks.

 

[repairedCheese]

will i be able to do all that from the os install disk?

I know that for windows at least you need to install the old OS first and on the first partition, and most windows versions can handle laying out all the partitions you'll need.

You absolutely can set up disks from an install disk, both OS 9, and OSX. Well, as long as the disck setup tools are on there, and by default they should be. But you might want to install whatever version of X you're looking to put on it first, actually, every time I've done this sort of thing on my eMac, 10.4 and 10.5 like breaking my 9.2 install, which means I have to fix it using a 9 disk. I can't promise you'll have the same problems, but 9 seems to like to break a lot easier on these old machines.

 

[hunterjwizzard]

Ok, sounds like I can do everything I need comfortably from the OS install disks. I've been perusing some of the download repositories trying to find the CDs, and have 2 more questions:

1. Can I burn these from a windows system using commonly available burning software?

2. Do I need to be looking for a 10.4.11 disk or can I use the more common 10.4.2?

 

[Raging Dufus]

Ok, sounds like I can do everything I need comfortably from the OS install disks. I've been perusing some of the download repositories trying to find the CDs, and have 2 more questions:

1. Can I burn these from a windows system using commonly available burning software?

2. Do I need to be looking for a 10.4.11 disk or can I use the more common 10.4.2?

1. Yes, I've used ImgBurn in Windows 7 to burn both Mac OS and Linux Mac images. Works well enough.

2. There aren't any 10.4.11 discs that I'm aware of, I think that was only available as a download from Apple. If there are any on physical media, they'd be machine-specific and Intel-only. I believe 10.4.6 was the last retail PPC version released on physical media, and you can download that from Macintosh Garden (it's download #30 on that list). You can then update to 10.4.11 via Software Updater, or also find all the Tiger updates on the same page at the Garden.

 

[hunterjwizzard]

I had the unit down from the rack last night and grabbed a couple pictures. Obviously nothing everybody here hasn't seen before, but it was nice to get access to the machine. I'm presently in the midst of a massive re-cabling project.

G4, in all it's splendor. And my unfocused camera.