Shameless Plug - My Mac OS 7 Web Site

[dpaanlka]

I have an old G3 blue and White on OS9.2
Other than a problem with sleep (caused by my HP ScanJet extension which is sadly the only reason I use the computer) it has been pretty much reliable.

9.2.2 is very reliable for me as well on my G3s. However old pre-G3 Macs cannot run anything higher than 9.1, and 9 is very sloth-like on those machines. 8.6 is better, but too slow for me personally.

 

[RacerX]

Just like you typing those huge, smug responses.

I can be smug... I've at least backed up what I was saying.

Just think, you could be smug too by showing me I'm wrong. You just need to back up these statements:

"newest fattest version"
"much more bloated"
"doesnt really do anything a whole lot better"
"when it comes to whatever task anyone might actually still be using a 601, 603 or 604 based Mac in the year 2006 for"​

Shouldn't be that hard... right?

What is funny is that none of this would have come up if you had only said... well, this:

"8.6 is better, but too slow for me personally."​

I would never have argued with you on that point.

Why, something like that sounds almost diplomatic. A far cry from your earlier abrasive statements about Mac OS 8.6.

I bet you never even used Mac OS 7 on that Duo, at least (and especially) not with SpeedDoubler 8. Because in all honestly I seriously cannot understand how you can continue to make claims like that. I'm sitting here in front of the exact same Duo as yours, and it is so much faster now with 7.6 than it ever was with 8.6.

Are we putting money on that?

When I originally got this Duo, it had 12 MB of RAM and was running Mac OS 7.6. I have both RAMDoubler and SpeedDoubler, and was forced to use that system in that state for four weeks.

Once I put the additional memory in, I put Mac OS 8.6 on and never thought twice about it. But that was my preference. But we aren't talking about preferences... we're talking about your earlier broad statements which included covering tasks anyone might actually still be using a 601, 603 or 604 based Mac in the year 2006 for.

Further, I used Mac OS 8.1 on my Duo 280 for 3 years. That system had 36 MB of RAM. Infact, the only Duo I kept using System 7 on was my 230 (12 MB of RAM)... and that I kept at 7.1.


What is even more interesting is that you keep having to push this helper for your system. Why do you keep bringing up SpeedDoubler? Shouldn't Mac OS 7.6.1 be able to stand on it's own? Are you saying that 7.6.1 is only good as long as it has it's crutch?

 

[Maxwell Smart]

dpaanlka, I'd just like to comment about how useful and insightful your website is.

I have a Powerbook 1400c that I just recently aquired. It has a 603e 133Mhz, 32MB of RAM, and a 1.3GB hard drive. Talking to my friends and reading online, I thought that OS 8.6 would be the way to go. Boy was I wrong, the thing is slow, I mean *really* slow, and crashes and freezes up on me all the time. Once I find a copy of 7.6.1 its definitly going on it. I got a Dell Truemobile 1150 card for it, and was worried I couldn't get drivers for it, but was pleasantly surprised that not only were there drivers, and they were easy to find on your site, but also you had them available for download! Instead of all those annoying sites where they link to a page thats been down forever. Your site seems like a lifesaver and definitly help me in my System 7 adventures, browsing the web and talking on aim on a wireless-enabled 10 year old powerbook .

One thought I had though, was that iCab http://www.icab.de/ is a great webbrowser that still works great on Mac OS 7, and still is being developed! A great resource for under your Internet section.

I've also read through this whole thread, and I have to say that RacerX is really being an ass. You post this great resource of a website and share a wealth of knowledge about OS 7 and yet some people still have the need to write out huge smug responses and try to crap on your thread. Anyway, I'd just like to thank you again for making such a useful site!

 

[dpaanlka]

dpaanlka, I'd just like to comment about how useful and insightful your website is.

Thanks for that, it's quite refreshing if you know what I mean! I'm glad that you and others are finding it as useful as I hoped it would be.

I had to figure out how to get Mac OS 7 to do most of that through trial and error... so I figured I might as well make a site that describes how to do all that for everybody else! And make it look good at that...

Be sure to ask me if you have any questions or anything as you move along on your OS 7 adventures... ask in the forum on my site (I'd prefer so others can find the answers later)...

 

[dpaanlka]

What is even more interesting is that you keep having to push this helper for your system. Why do you keep bringing up SpeedDoubler? Shouldn't Mac OS 7.6.1 be able to stand on it's own? Are you saying that 7.6.1 is only good as long as it has it's crutch?

Yes... I am. The "crutch" fixes the two major flaws that people would otherwise have serious concerns about. OS 7 takes care of the rest...

 

[RacerX]

I've also read through this whole thread, and I have to say that RacerX is really being an ass.

Wow Mr. Smart, that is rather harsh. But you are entitled to your opinion (though I believe the wording of your opinion may violate board rules).

You post this great resource of a website and share a wealth of knowledge about OS 7 and yet some people still have the need to write out huge smug responses and try to crap on your thread.

Are you sure you read the thread?

My... crap (as you so eloquently put it) in this thread was a direct responds to.. well, crap in this thread about Mac OS 8.6. I did my best to stay on the technical merits, but dpaanlka was (sadly) either unable or unwilling to do the same.

Not much I can do there.

But for the record, I never said anything bad about his site (though dpaanlka imagined that I had), and I constantly repeated the statements I had problems with (some as many as 9 times) to keep the discussion to those comments.

Talking to my friends and reading online, I thought that OS 8.6 would be the way to go. Boy was I wrong, the thing is slow, I mean *really* slow, and crashes and freezes up on me all the time.

Well, you sure seem to have found a copy of 8.6 really fast... and made an opinion of it equally as fast.

Odd that you are having issues with "crashes and freezes", of all versions of the classic Mac OS, i've found 8.6 to be by far the most stable. I don't even think dpaanlka has ever said that he found it to be prone to crashes and freezing... just slow.

So you may want to consider that there are other issues going on with your PowerBook above and beyond Mac OS 8.6, because these issues could just as easily show up in 7.6.1.. and we sure wouldn't want you to rush to judgment on that OS too... though rushing to judgment seems to be what you do best.

Yes... I am. The "crutch" fixes the two major flaws that people would otherwise have serious concerns about. OS 7 takes care of the rest...

Well, if SpeedDoubler 8 makes that big a difference, then I'm sure you plan on installing it in Mac OS 8 when you do your unbias comparison between Mac OS 7.6.1 and 8.6. After all, SpeedDoubler 8 is called SpeedDoubler 8 because it was optimized for Mac OS 8.

Unless you are trying to make the playing field unlevel.

By the way, doesn't SpeedDoubler 8 require System 7.5.5 or higher? This sort of goes back to the point I made about your site being a 7.6.1 site rather than a System 7 site. The main changes in SpeedDoubler (and RAMDoubler for that matter) with version 8 was Mac OS 8 compatibility. Wouldn't a version for all System 7 users be more useful?

 

[dpaanlka]

Well, if SpeedDoubler 8 makes that big a difference, then I'm sure you plan on installing it in Mac OS 8 when you do your unbias comparison between Mac OS 7.6.1 and 8.6. After all, SpeedDoubler 8 is called SpeedDoubler 8 because it was optimized for Mac OS 8.

Unless you are trying to make the playing field unlevel.

Speed Doubler 8 was made for 8.0, not 8.6 (which is supposed to be the faster one anyway). Speed Doubler 8 does NOT run on Mac OS 8.6.

And... here are the results from a simple set of benchmarks I did today. These are things that are important to me. I did all these tests on the same PowerBook Duo 2300c, with the same ram and hard drive, same everything. The only difference is, the copy of Mac OS 7 has tons of software installed, quicktime 5, as well as Speed Doubler 8. The version of Mac OS 8.6 has QuickTime 5 and CarbonLib installed. Both machines had virtual memory switched off, and disk cache set to around 1.6mb. Mac OS 8 had a few kb more disk cache... but that should be in Mac OS 8's favor...

I'd like to also mention that this test was done with only SpeedDobler 8's 68k emulation enabled. The "Faster File Copying" and "Faster Disk Performance" options were turned off. Also, DeskPict (which gives Mac OS 7 desktop pictures) was also enabled... so both machines had to render a desktop picture and be fully useable before the stopwatch stopped on boot times.

RAM Used at Idle:
Mac OS 8.6: 19.2MB
Mac OS 7.6.1: 10.4MB

GUI 1000 Dialog Test:
Mac OS 8.6: 113 Seconds
Mac OS 7.6.1: 72 Seconds

Cold Boot Times:
Mac OS 8.6: 147 Seconds
Mac OS 7.6: 109 Seconds

Reboot Time:
Mac OS 8.6: 149 Seconds
Mac OS 7.6.1: 104 Seconds

Shut Down Time:
Mac OS 8.6: 8 Seconds
Mac OS 7.6.1: 3 Seconds

Wake from Sleep:
Mac OS 8.6: 22 Seconds
Mac OS 7.6.1: 18 Seconds

Copy 485 Files:
Mac OS 8.6: 214 Seconds
Mac OS 7.6.1: 122 Seconds

So there. This all pretty much goes along with what I was saying.

 

[Maxwell Smart]

Are you sure you read the thread?

I'm quite sure as It took my quite a while to read through your long-winded commentary.

Well, you sure seem to have found a copy of 8.6 really fast... and made an opinion of it equally as fast.

Are you accusing me of lying? I didn't "find" a copy of OS 8.6 really fast, a copy of 8.5 and 8.6 update came with the machine when I purchased it.

Odd that you are having issues with "crashes and freezes", of all versions of the classic Mac OS, i've found 8.6 to be by far the most stable.

Odd indeed, it may also be that I am impatient and cannot wait 4 minutes for a computer to perform a simple task. I'm sure 8.6 is very stable, that's not to say it crashes when it runs on slower hardware (in this case a 133Mhz 603e)

So you may want to consider that there are other issues going on with your PowerBook above and beyond Mac OS 8.6, because these issues could just as easily show up in 7.6.1.. and we sure wouldn't want you to rush to judgment on that OS too... though rushing to judgment seems to be what you do best.

I don't rush to judgement, I call them as I see them, in this case, 8.6 is unbearably slow and crashes, it could be the case that this is the same with OS 7.6.1, in which case I will correct myself, though I highly doubt this.

In short, I would appreciate, as Im sure the OP would, if you would stop posting in a thread that is meant soley to help people (re)discover an older operating system, for those systems that would run (if you can even call it running) so very sluggishly with OS 8.6. Also, I see in no way how the OP is a 'spammer' as you put it, as not only is there no store on his website, but there is also no form of advertising or revenue-generating media whatsoever.

 

[MacFan782040]

Ahhhh those were the days...Coming home from school, chatting it up on ICQ...using WaterLoo MacJanet... Sharing the internet using PhoneNet wires... playing Aperon, Barrak, Bubbles, Sim City...AHhhhhhhhh

 

[dpaanlka]

If my previous test were to be the low end of the PowerPC Mac OS 7 spectrum, then this will be the high end.

Same exact tests as above, only performed on a PowerBook 1400c with a 466mhz Sonnet G3 upgrade. Each system folder had the Sonnet processor extensions installed. Of course, I'm not sayin Mac OS 8 is at all slow on this system (it is very very very fast) but, Mac OS 7 is still faster.

RAM Used at Idle:
Mac OS 8.6: 19.7MB
Mac OS 7.6.1: 10.7MB

GUI 1000 Dialog Test:
Mac OS 8.6: 51 Seconds
Mac OS 7.6.1: 41 Seconds

Cold Boot Times:
Mac OS 8.6: 57 Seconds
Mac OS 7.6: 40 Seconds

Reboot Time:
Mac OS 8.6: 62 Seconds
Mac OS 7.6.1: 43 Seconds

Shut Down Time:
Mac OS 8.6: 1 Second
Mac OS 7.6.1: 1 Second

Wake from Sleep:
Mac OS 8.6: 12 Seconds
Mac OS 7.6.1: 8 Seconds

Copy 485 Files:
Mac OS 8.6: 118 Seconds
Mac OS 7.6.1: 84 Seconds

 

[LethalWolfe]

Not to interrupt the nerd-battle going on here, but cool site dpaanlka.


Lethal

 

[dpaanlka]

Not to interrupt the nerd-battle going on here, but cool site dpaanlka.

LOL Thanks

For everyone - I updated the site to now feature a benchmarks page with (drumroll....) bar graphs! Huzzah!

 

[RacerX]

Speed Doubler 8 was made for 8.0, not 8.6 (which is supposed to be the faster one anyway). Speed Doubler 8 does NOT run on Mac OS 8.6.

Really? Odd... it sure seems like people have used it with Mac OS 8.6 (here and here) and 8.5.1 (here).

What is not working for you? As I recall all versions of 8 should run in 8.6, but version 8.1.x would be the best.

And... here are the results from a simple set of benchmarks I did today. These are things that are important to me. I did all these tests on the same PowerBook Duo 2300c, with the same ram and hard drive, same everything. The only difference is, the copy of Mac OS 7 has tons of software installed, quicktime 5, as well as Speed Doubler 8. The version of Mac OS 8.6 has QuickTime 5 and CarbonLib installed. Both machines had virtual memory switched off, and disk cache set to around 1.6mb. Mac OS 8 had a few kb more disk cache... but that should be in Mac OS 8's favor...

Were the Mac OS 8.6 tests done on HFS+? And wouldn't it be better if the disk cache was set to 32k for every MB of RAM in 7.6.1 and set to Default in 8.6 (where the system decides what cache it needs at startup)?


Additional comments/suggestions...
I do appreciate the time and effort you put into this, so don't take this the wrong way.

Weren't you going to test Mac OS 7.6.1 without SpeedDoubler installed? And wouldn't those results be a better base line for your graphs. And wouldn't it be less bias to run 8.6 on HFS+ (both with and without SpeedDoubler installed) and include those results?

I'm not saying that the results will be all that different, just that those changes would provide a better overview.

Odd indeed, it may also be that I am impatient and cannot wait 4 minutes for a computer to perform a simple task. I'm sure 8.6 is very stable, that's not to say it crashes when it runs on slower hardware (in this case a 133Mhz 603e)

My wife has been using my 2300c (603e/100 MHz) for playing games for the last couple weeks. She hasn't restarted it during that time and has only had one crash (which brought up Macsbug, but didn't take down the system).

If your computer is taking 4 minutes to perform a simple task, your system is in pretty bad shape... and Mac OS 8.6 has nothing to do with it.

Are you accusing me of lying?

I could call you an ass, would that be something you would find less objectionable? Surely you were not expecting me to give you the benefit of doubt after your earlier post?

Like you, I call them as I see them. And if you are unable to attempt to be civil, why should I bother making such an attempt with you?

 

[dpaanlka]

Really? Odd... it sure seems like people have used it with Mac OS 8.6 (here and here) and 8.5.1 (here).

What is not working for you? As I recall all versions of 8 should run in 8.6, but version 8.1.x would be the best.

That first link you sent me made no mention of SpeedDoubler 8. That second link was talking most about 8.1. Yes, SpeedDoubler 8 does work in 8.1. Not in 8.6. Try it yourself, you can download SpeedDoubler at my site.

It will appear to load in the extension lineup, but when you access the control panel everything will still be disabled, since SpeedDoubler 8 was made before 8.6, it doesn't know how to handle this any other way than to say "changes will take effect on restart."

Finally, I believe I gave Mac OS 8.6 enough of a head start on both tests, as both machines already had Mac OS 7.6.1 installed and used with tons of extras, such as MS Office 98, IE 5, Photoshop, Illustrator, Dreamweaver, Stuffit... all these things throw extra stuff into the System Folder that takes longer to start up and uses more resources. If I had done a true clean install of 7.6.1 just as I had done for 8.6, these results likely would have been even more in favor of 7.6.1.

EDIT: Here is an exact quote from that first article: "We also tested SpeedDoubler 8 from Connectix but noted no performance gains or losses." - because SpeedDoubler 8 does not load in Mac OS 8.6.

You must admit, that second article sounds like a lot of stuff the author (and commentors) assumed and fabricated as he was writing. 9.1 is faster than 7.6.1? Please don't tell me you believe that as well. 9.1's finder feels slow even on old G3s (problem addressed in 9.2.x).

YET ANOTHER EDIT: On both machines I set Mac OS 8.6 to select it's own disk cache size. Whatever that was, I set Mac OS 7.6.1 to as well. Regardless, the Disk Cache that Mac OS 8.6 chooses seems to always bee a certain percentage of RAM, not the hard disk size.

 

[dpaanlka]

By the way, a big thank you to RacerX for giving me the drive to do the testing I had planned to do since I created that site back in November, but was too lazy to actually go through with. Now I want to do tests on some desktops... perhaps over spring break. I have an 8600 and 6500 that will be perfect candidates. Also an 8100 with a NewerTech G3.

 

[big]

Have you seen http://www.porte-voix.com/mac/?

 

[dpaanlka]

Have you seen http://www.porte-voix.com/mac/?

Can't get that to work...

 

[Mechcozmo]

Both machines had virtual memory switched off

I didn't know you could disable the virtual memory in 8.0 and up... am I just forgetting?

Copy 485 Files:
Mac OS 8.6: 214 Seconds
Mac OS 7.6.1: 122 Seconds

What size files? What size hard drive? (With HFS vs. HFS+ it matters)

Personally, 8.6 is more stable, runs the software I want to run, and doesn't need as many 3rd-party stuff added on. It also works nicely with TCP/IP and AppleTalk. I've been able to set up AppleTalk networks between my PowerBook and my PowerComputing, but not so with my System 7 box.

 

[dpaanlka]

I didn't know you could disable the virtual memory in 8.0 and up... am I just forgetting?

What size files? What size hard drive? (With HFS vs. HFS+ it matters)

Personally, 8.6 is more stable, runs the software I want to run, and doesn't need as many 3rd-party stuff added on. It also works nicely with TCP/IP and AppleTalk. I've been able to set up AppleTalk networks between my PowerBook and my PowerComputing, but not so with my System 7 box.

The Memory Control Panel (?).

The total folder size was 87mb. The sizes of files varied. It was the entire Microsoft Office 98 folder copied. The tests were performed on an 800mb hard drive, rendering HFS+'s benefits nearly nonexistant (if at all).

If you can't get Mac OS 7 to work with your AppleTalk network, then you have something set up wrong. AppleTalk, TCP/IP, and OpenTransport is pretty much the same (setup wise) between Mac OS 7 and Mac OS 8. So I don't know what to tell you there.

Stability wise, are you sure that your thinking of Mac OS 7.6.1? Because, Mac OS 7.6.1 on any Mac is roughly as stable as Mac OS 8.6. Mac OS 7.5.5 is not very stable in comparison, so be sure that you are certain of your statements. Mac OS 7.5.5 is the free one, Mac OS 7.6.1 is not. They're not the same OS.

I can understand, though, if you need to use software that requires Mac OS 8.6. However, if the software you use will run on Mac OS 7.6.1 perhaps try that?

 

[RacerX]

You are right, the version you have (8.0.0) doesn't work on 8.6... or at least most of it doesn't work (it may still load the new emulation software at startup).

After doing a little more research on the subject I've found that it seems the 8.1.x updates were free downloads from Connectix (which no longer exist), but those do work in 8.6 (which was the last version of the Mac OS supported by SpeedDoubler).

On the subject of compatibility when Mac OS 8.6 came out, this is what the people at Connectix had to say (quoted from this page):

John Menkart says that Connectix confirmed a SpeedDoubler conflict with the new OS, but David Black-Schaffer was able to fix the problem by increasing the utility's memory allocation with ResEdit (this should only be tried on a copy of the file). Connectix's Kathy Westergaard says that the problem is not the OS, but a combination of Quicktime 4 and file sharing:

[John Menkart] "I installed 8.6 on my original (bondi blue) iMac and Powerbook G3 series today and all of a sudden I get an error message when I try to restart (or shutdown) my macs. Basically, I'm unable to restart the system as "an application cannot be shut down." Go to the applications switcher and quit the applications from the file menu, [but] the only thing that shows as active is the Finder!

"I have isolated this problem to the fact that I had file sharing active. Once I start file sharing (even if I then shut it off) I am unable to restart or shut down without hitting the reset button. I have traced this to the fact that Finder cannot terminate the SpeedDoubler process if file sharing has been previously enabled. (I used Peekaboo and was also unable tp kill the process). If I disable SpeedDoubler and do not allow it to load this problem is alleviated."

[David Black-Schaffer] "I read somewhere that increasing memory allocations by 300k with 8.6 was a good idea. After increasing the allocation on the SpeedDoubler extension (using ResEdit) it now quits as expected on shutdown/restart."

[Kathy Westergaard] "Regarding your post about OS 8.6 and Speed Doubler 8 today, this conflict is a result of the combination of QuickTime 4 beta, file sharing, and Speed Doubler 8. Connectix is working with Apple to resolve this conflict with the beta release. In the meantime, we suggest any one of these workarounds:

• Turn off file sharing if not needed
• Turn off Speed Doubler's "use faster network copy protocol" feature
• Use the release version of QuickTime (3.0.x)

"We don't recommend using ResEdit to alter Speed Doubler as it can give unpredictable results."​

I believe they are talking about a later version of SpeedDoubler than 8.0.0 though.

I still think that running these benchmarks with SpeedDoubler (a compatible version) installed in Mac OS 8.6 is important... but I don't expect you to hunt down a copy solely for this purpose (it wouldn't add anything to your site or that page as the point of both the site and the page is to highlight what can be done in 7.6.1).

Similarly, while I think that a clean install of 7.6.1 is important (and really should be used as the baseline for benchmarking), I don't expect you to run these test at the expense of your school work.

I didn't know you could disable the virtual memory in 8.0 and up... am I just forgetting?

You can't turn off virtual memory if your system is so low on RAM that the system believes it requires virtual memory (the option is disabled in those cases).

The tests were performed on an 800mb hard drive, rendering HFS+'s benefits nearly nonexistant (if at all).

The benefits start to show on volumes greater than 1 GB, and by the time you get to volumes as large as 4 GB (the size of the hard drive in an 8600/300 when it shipped) the differences start to be come very noticeable.

I don't have a drive smaller than 4 GB in any of my Mac OS 8 systems (other than a 500 MB system drive in my Quadra 950, the data drive in that system is 9.1 GB), and I don't have anything larger than 1 GB in any of my pre-8 systems (my Quadra 700, for example, running A/UX 3.0.1 uses a 500 MB drive, but that is actually using UFS rather than HFS anyways).

The Applications folder on my 3400c/200 takes up 1.3 GB of a 10 GB drive.

 

[dpaanlka]

Interesting...

I suppose I should try and find a copy of SpeedDoubler 8.1.x... although, I only use it for 68k emulation (not the faster disk performance or file copying). So, since Mac OS 8.6 is largely PowerPC, I still wouldn't expect that to make much of a difference in favor of Mac OS 8.6. I would still fully expect 8.6 to have about those same times. Besides, all of this old Connectix crap is so hard to find these days.

 

[dpaanlka]

I must correct myself... I found the updater to Speed Doubler 8.1.2.. and found that I must have had faster disk performance turned on for those tests.

So, I suppose, if you had Speed Doubler 8.1.2 installed on both Mac OS 8.6 and 7.6.1.... they would have nearly identical copy times in those tests (I would imagine).

Everything else would still apply though.

EDIT: Disregard everything I said in the three sentences above. I was simply looking at the numbers for the Duo instead of my 1400. I did run the tests with them off. I actually get nearly identical results with it on or off so I don't think it makes that big of a difference (even on the Duo, which has a 2gb hard drive).

 

[sushi]

Let's not get this thread wastelanded, eh? I think you're both right anyway - OS 8.x is more feature-filled but slows some older hardware. System 7 is faster on some older hardware but just doesn't offer all the useful features that 8.x does.

Well put.

One thing that amazed me was I would start the boot of my iMac (Original Bondi Blue G3/233) running 8.6 and 9.2. Then I would start my PowerBook 170 with System 7. The PowerBook would be up and running long before my iMac with either 8.6 or 9.2 boot.

To me 8.6 and 9.2 were bloatware compared to 7.

7 was leaps and bounds better than 6 -- although I am sure some old timers on the board would differ with that opinion. BTW, I started developing just as the switch to 7 was occurring.

I do like 9 the best when it comes to features and stability.

8.6 isn't bad either.

Getting back to the OP, I just like his site. Thought that it was nice for those who want/need to use OS 7.

 

[dpaanlka]

Getting back to the OP, I just like his site. Thought that it was nice for those who want/need to use OS 7.

Thanks!

I'm actually doing a pretty heavy redesign of the site... hopefully I'll be able to finish it soon.

I'm trying to replicate the feel of Apple's website from late 1997 - 1998.

 

[cballero]

Fun with older Powerbooks!

I recently upgraded my daughter's 2300c with a 3400c and she likes the speed improvement. I came accross this system 7 web site and it looks really good. It gives really good resources to get more out of system 7 with little investment, especially since system 7.6.1 already comes on it.

I have a few more 3400cs, one that I have used for simple computing and it came with 9.1. Another has 8.6 and another 8.1. Each one offers something a little different. The most noticeable diference is some newer features and programs and speed differences. On the 9.1 Powerbook, everything run a little slower, but I get to run some OS 9 only programs. Surprisingly, most programs that run on 8.6 run on 9, so I like the faster response of my 8.6 system. I also update two more 3400cs with 9.1 to 9.2.1 on one and 9.2.2 on the other. Funny enough, I seem to prefer the 9.2.1 system, but keep in mind that the upgrades we're not clean installs, so I cannot say definitely that any difference does exist. By the way, I also use CPU DoubIer v1.0 on all these systems although I used to have 1.1 which I lost during a tough move we did from California where we had to give our home furnishings and about 20+ Macs away in the process, mostly to charities and family, except for our trusty Powerbooks.

I have installed a mix of older and newer programs and games on the 7.6.1 system, and they really seem to fly on it and will add speeddoubler to it for more speed! I have a copy of Speed Doubler on the 8.1 system, and it also feels nearly as fast. OS 8.1 does give me a chance to run a few newer prorams, but they bigger programs do run slower.

I am sharing my raw, untested observation on these Powerbooks. I did install four 96mb memory modules I found for these Powerbooks, up from 32mb. The other two had 128mb already. The other factor is that the 8.1 and 9.1 have the faster 240MHz CPU, so this takes those two systems out of a fair comparison, Although I have booted them in SCSI mode, mainly to copy some files between systems, and 8.1 and 9.1 did not seem to suffer greatly running on the slower 180MHz CPUs.

Here's a benchmark site that covers 7.6 to 8.6 without surfdoubler or newer programs, it may prove an interesting read:

http://www.macspeedzone.com/archive/Comparison/76to86.html

It's a relatively simple set of tests given on a 9500/200 tower, but it did appear to show that unless you're in Photoshop all day or need to copy a lot of files, 7.6 did not show itself to be slow at all on this system, although I didn't see how much ram memory it ran with and if virtual memory was on or not (for PPCs, I'm assuming they opted for on).

Another similar link gave the same tests, but on a G3/233 with 96mb ram set to 97 with virtual memory. I wish my 8.5 CD wouldn't have literally snapped in two due to my then toddler's fascination with CDs, I'd hate to reinvest in the same product I already had. Also disregard the name of the web site page, it does compare 8.6 to 9.0, with the obvious speed winner for this matchup:

http://www.macspeedzone.com/archive/Comparison/7.5.1vs7.5.3.html

I am in the process of getting more used 3400s and refurbishing them for kids in the neighborhood, mostly because parents are amazed my little one is so good with computers for her age.

I just wanted to throw in my everyday passion for Macintosh any flavor. Oh and I did get some Orinoco's and all of them are surfing on everything from v6 Orinoco drivers on 7.6 to 7.2 and Airport 2.0.4 on the 9.2.xs.