Oldest OSX capable mac?

Discussion in 'Apple Collectors' started by boatofcar, Sep 3, 2005.

  1. boatofcar macrumors newbie

    Nov 17, 2004
    What do you think the oldest mac is that is capable of running OS X? I know that with X Post Facto you can run it on machines older than G3's, but what is the cutoff?
  2. iJon macrumors 604


    Feb 7, 2002
    10.0 -10.2 - Any G3 Mac besides original G3 PowerBook
    10.3 - G3 with built in USB
    10.4 - G3 with built in FireWire

  3. aquajet macrumors 68020

    Feb 12, 2005
    You've confused the Wallstreet for the Kanga. Wallstreet will run 10.0-10.2, Kanga will not run OS X.

    I've run OS 10.2 on a PowerMac 7500 with a 500 mhz G3 upgrade.
  4. RGunner macrumors 6502a


    Jul 3, 2002
    Midnight Sun
    I have..

    10.4 running on a S900 (vintage 1997)
    10.4 running on a Wallstreet.

    Both with heavy upgrades and lots of time / money invested...

    Buy a Mini.
  5. RacerX macrumors 65832

    Aug 2, 2004
    The oldest Mac (using XPostFacto) would be the Power Macintosh 9500 (introduced on May 1, 1995 and which predates both the 7500 and 8500 by three months).


    Also, if we are talking about any OS that was called Mac OS X, Mac OS X Server 1.0 - 1.2v3 will install on any of the early PCI Macs with a PowerPC 604/604e processor. And will also install on the PowerBook 3400c, 2400c and G3 (Kanga).

    Additionally, it also runs on any PowerMac G3, the PowerMac G4s (up to the Gigabit Ethernet version using 1.2v3), early eMacs (with ATI graphics), the PowerBook G3 series (Wallstreets and Lombards, not Pismos), clamshell iBooks, and pretty much any iMac G3. :rolleyes:
  6. boatofcar thread starter macrumors newbie

    Nov 17, 2004
    Thanks for the real answer :)
  7. 840quadra Moderator


    Staff Member

    Feb 1, 2005
    Twin Cities Minnesota
    I have it working (POORLY) on my 6500/275 running Puma via the Xpostfacto

    The biggest problem isn't the L2G3 card I have, it is the limited memory of 128mb this motherboard supports. What is sad is the date this system was introduced is well after my 1993 Quadra 840av that supports the exact same amount of memory.

    I did it just for the learning experience, however I still use OS 8.5 as my primary on this box, It just runs faster, especially with the G3 card!!

    Here is a link that helped me install on my 275, it was a trial and error process, but this article was a great refrence .

  8. RacerX macrumors 65832

    Aug 2, 2004
    Actually, the Quadra 840av was limited when it came out too. That is the same upper limit as the Macintosh IIcx which was released in 1989 (4 years earlier than the 840av). The first system to break the 128 MB barrier was the Quadra 900 (which came out 2 years earlier than the 840av) with 256 MB.

    The thing about the 6400/6500 series systems was that they were not designed as PowerMacs, they were designed as Performas and sold as both. As such, the 6400/6500 series was crippled in a number of ways (including using a PowerPC 603 series processor rather than a PowerPC 604 series).

    Besides, the 6400/6500s were released after the 9500 (which can have up to 1.5 GB of RAM installed in it).
  9. firststrike101 macrumors member

    Mar 1, 2005
    Manitoba, Canada
    A couple of old front-slot loading iMacs (1st generation iMacs I believe) here at my work are running Panther. The IT guy made them work somehow. Although they are super slow and take for ever to do anything on. At least I dont have to work on them
  10. 840quadra Moderator


    Staff Member

    Feb 1, 2005
    Twin Cities Minnesota

    Thanks for the review,

    I was aware of the crippled nature of the 6500, and that the 840 too was crippled. Sadly I bought both for the AV features (the 6500 has a TV tuner and Video in and out).

    The 6500 is used as my "poor Man's" TIVO currently, however I am not able to get the ethernet (Apple branded card) working, so I have some good videos, that I cannot get onto my G series systems to compress / publish for myself.

    I need to dig through apples sight for the needed drivers, I just haven't made the time yet :(
  11. RacerX macrumors 65832

    Aug 2, 2004
    That was one of the ways Apple crippled those systems.

    I remember running around in circles trying to get a 6500/300 to work with an ethernet card... then I found out that Apple didn't want those systems to work with them.

    There were lots of Macs that could capture video... 7100av, 8100av, 7500, 8500, 7600, 8600. In fact an 8600/300 is faster at some floating point operations than a G3/266 or G3/300 (remember that the G3 was based on the 603e, which was not the fastest PowerPC processor at floating point operations). Plus you can increase the AV abilities of those systems by upgrading the VRAM.

    Sure at the time of it's release the 6500 was a great system for it's price, but these days an 8500/8600 would be a better base system for that type of thing.

    Of course I haven't used any of my Macs (7100av, 8100av, 7500, 8500 or 8600) for capturing video in years. My SGI Indy (from 1993) can capture video (at full frame size and full frame rate) better than any other system I own.

    Come to think of it, I'm pretty sure I still have an old Nubus AV card that works in my Quadra 950 (though I don't have it in there right now) that works pretty good too.
  12. 840quadra Moderator


    Staff Member

    Feb 1, 2005
    Twin Cities Minnesota
    Indeed, indeed.

    No need to rub it in more, it is a Road Apple.

    I still like it, and it is a welcome member of my collection. Remember I bought it WELL before I could afford a G3, anything, and the computers you mention were still quite expensive in comparison.

    The 6500 helped me keep my love for apple strong, and it Credit it for getting me the bug to buy the B&W which launched me into the G3 era, and shortly after that purchase, I bought my G4, and G5.
  13. jiv3turkey748 macrumors 6502a


    Dec 30, 2004
    i have 10.3.9 running on a 400mhz imac g3 with 192mb of ram
  14. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Dec 21, 2002
    Yahooville S.C.
    Very cool ,iam getting my old 333 back soon and iam thinking of putting it on and would love to be running 10.3.9 on it. It was my UT machine :D
  15. California macrumors 68040


    Aug 21, 2004

    No problem running 10.3.9 on 233/266/333 iMacs. Ditch some exteraneous stuff and stuff it with ram (tho they say they only go to 512k, I think with pc100 ram you can get them to 1 gig) and a new deskstar hd, and I was pleasantly pleased with performance.
  16. G5Unit macrumors 68020


    Apr 3, 2005
    I'm calling the cops
    I think the minimum OS X should be run on is a 500mhz.(Tiger)
  17. im_to_hyper macrumors 65816


    Aug 25, 2004
    Glendale, California, USA
    Well, 500 MHz should definately be the minimum for Tiger if you are trying to get valuable, quality use out of it.

    Some people like to install newer OSs onto older computers just to prove that they can, or just to have fun.


Share This Page