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

wich OS?

G

gerror

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Oct 25, 2001
282
0
Netherlands
Fellowmaccers,
My girlfriend wants to use my good old 7100 to use for some textprocessing and email. I've got 7.5, 8.5 and 9.x. Wich one should I use.? The machine has 40 mb workmemory. Perhaps 7.5/7.6 is the fastest?
Thanx,
Gerror
 
8.5 + the 8.6 update would allow Carbon compatibility for many converted programs.
 
thanx guys,
I going for 8.6 now. It's nice you can make somebody happy with a 10 year old Mac. If it is only for textprocessing and emailing these babies will do fine :)
gerror
 
8.6 will be the most compatible, but 7.6.1 is your best bet for that machine, especially w/40MB mem.

7.6.1 is one of my favorite Mac OSes of all time. Naver had a problem with it I never really liked 8.6. It's bloated compared with System/Mac OS 7.

The honest truth is that 8.6 was never really meant for that machine. :(
 
Originally posted by mc68k
8.6 will be the most compatible, but 7.6.1 is your best bet for that machine, especially w/40MB mem.

7.6.1 is one of my favorite Mac OSes of all time. Naver had a problem with it I never really liked 8.6. It's bloated compared with System/Mac OS 7.

The honest truth is that 8.6 was never really meant for that machine. :(
Click to expand...

agreed. with 40mb of ram you will be happiest with 7.6.1.

if you feel like dropping ~$50 you could upgrade the ram and install 8.6 but i still think 7.6.1 would be best.
 
What about an 130MHz 8500 with 128 Megs of ram? It's one of my buddies computer, and I'm thinking of installing 9. What does everyone think?

Thanks,
Draft
 
Originally posted by Draft
What about an 130MHz 8500 with 128 Megs of ram? It's one of my buddies computer, and I'm thinking of installing 9. What does everyone think?

Thanks,
Draft
Click to expand...
9 will be happy on that machine with 128MB of RAM if gutted of all useless extensions. The only slowness in that setup w/9 will lie with the processor.

It also depends what tasks you are doing with it. The only slowness in that setup w/9 will lie with the processor. CPU intensive tasks will be slow. Anything that gobbles up mem will page to the hard diak.

But 9 is a much better choice than 8.x for the 8500. I would recommend 9.1.
 
Originally posted by mc68k
9 will be happy on that machine with 128MB of RAM if gutted of all useless extensions. The only slowness in that setup w/9 will lie with the processor.

It also depends what tasks you are doing with it. The only slowness in that setup w/9 will lie with the processor. CPU intensive tasks will be slow. Anything that gobbles up mem will page to the hard diak.

But 9 is a much better choice than 8.x for the 8500. I would recommend 9.1.
Click to expand...

agreed. and to add to mc68k's comments if you are having trouble figuring out how to 'gut' the extensions you might want to use the demo of an app called Extension Overload. It is basically an extension manager that will let you disable extensions just like the built in extension manager, but it will give you good information on what each extension does so you will know if you need them or not. the demo is fully functional, but since you will likley only use it once to initisally cut down your system i woudlnt recommend purchasing a licence. purchasing a copy is mostly for people who plan to use it on a day to day basis as extension manager replacement.

[EDIT] : http://www.extensionoverload.com/
 
Originally posted by AmbitiousLemon
you might want to use the demo of an app called Extension Overload.
Click to expand...
Check this app out. This is where I turn when I'm at all hesitant about deleting an extension.

You don't have to delete the extensions either. You can just throw them in another folder other than extensions in case they're needed later. Extensions take up space in memory, and with 128MB, you don't want to be too conservative.
 
Originally posted by mc68k
9 will be happy on that machine with 128MB of RAM if gutted of all useless extensions. The only slowness in that setup w/9 will lie with the processor.

It also depends what tasks you are doing with it. The only slowness in that setup w/9 will lie with the processor. CPU intensive tasks will be slow. Anything that gobbles up mem will page to the hard diak.

But 9 is a much better choice than 8.x for the 8500. I would recommend 9.1.
Click to expand...

Thanks for your advice. Why 9.1? Why not 9.2.2? Is 9.2 reserved for later hardware? Thanks.

I used to have a 6115, so I know all about removing non-used extensions. I ran 8.6 on that, though.

Thanks,
Draft
 
you'll probably want to run at least 8.1 on any ppc machine, as os8 was the first to include all of the new ppc native code and 8.1 was the first to use the hfs+ filesystem. any 604 processor should not have problems running a variant of 8, i'm assuming that trimming down the extention set of 9 (i had to do this on my 2001 imac for goodness sake) will make it quite usable, provided that you have at least 72 megs.

edit: i would also agree with many of the other posters, that 8.6 would be the best bet, as it offers carbon compatability, with out os9's bloat.
 
Originally posted by Draft
Thanks for your advice. Why 9.1? Why not 9.2.2? Is 9.2 reserved for later hardware?
Click to expand...
Yes. Reserved would be a kind word for it. I believe Apple screwed many of it's users w/9.2.x

9.2.x is totally capable of running on many older macs, but Apple decided which machines it would support. Apple took out code for the express purpose of alienating its users or to make them upgrade. I could see X not being supported, but 9 was unwaranted.

All that is needed to make it run is gestalt patches in the system suitcase (esentially re-identifying the machines that apple took out). But I don't suggest you try this. 9.1 is the last supported OS for legacy macs, so that's what I would recoomend for a hack-free installation.

I used to have a 6115, so I know all about removing non-used extensions. I ran 8.6 on that, though.
Click to expand...
Cool. That's the hardest part. :)
 
Originally posted by Draft
Would it be ok to install 9.2.2 on the 8500? That's the only disk that I have on me right now; No OS 9./B]
Click to expand...
Sure.

You'll need some tools before installation:

MachID Wannabe
Patched System Suitcase

Basically you boot your computer with the MachID Wannabe Control Panel. Then change your gestalt ID to 510 (beige g3 #) with the utility. This will allow you to install.

The only problem is that the installation will create a non-bootable suitcase. This will have to be replaced if the computer is to reboot. You can't boot from the 9.2.2 CD either, so you'll have to install from another partition if possible.

I can provide both of these for you if you want. (or a OS 9.1 image).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back