XPF |
May, 09, 2003 2:40 PM |
rampel183 |
Actually a continuation to problems installing 10.2 with XPF. I know that XPF installs certain things to the target disk befor rebooting from the install CD. What I DIDN'T know is that various things get installed to your System Folder of your 9.x drive from which you are running the whole operation. After the 10.2 (unsuccessful) install tries I went back to work on my 9.2.2 drive and suddenly it's not behaving as it was before. It's slower, freezes a lot and crashes. I started looking for files created on the (10.2 install) date and sure enough there's a folder called Private in my (9.2.2) System Folder created on that date with Library/extensions and some other things. As soon as I trashed them my 9.2.2 drive became more familiar, more like it was before the install. My Question: Is this SUPPOSED to happpen? because, if I have to degrade the performance of my 9.2.2 partition for the sake of running 10.2 - assuming I succeed installing it - then I give up. 10.2 will never run really fast on my machine, never as fast as 9.2.2 so I would rather start saving for the 970 machines on which 10.x will run Native |
. |
RE: XPF |
May, 10, 2003 5:39 PM |
fixitjc |
. |
The 8 meg rule applies to IDE/ATA not SCSI The full hight drives are external actually free standing using an old 6100 powersupply to drive them. Had planned to put them in an old 8100 case but didn't have time to figure out how to power it up. yeah it would have been quite a trick to get them in the 8500 case and support them and all the other drives off the 8500 PS...lol It would probably make a nice stove or as a friend of mine says it would probably "let the smoke out" of the PS. As to your install problem disk 2 is mostly applications and not critical for machine operation. since Disk 1 has installed try reinstalling extentions etc from XPF and launching from XPF. after you get X stable then go to Disk 2 and install the applications. Hope that helps JIm |
. |
RE: XPF |
May, 10, 2003 3:25 PM |
rampel183 |
. |
Ah, good to know about installing CD1 first and checking if it's OK (need to get a boot first) before going on to cd2 Thanks |
. |
RE: XPF |
May, 10, 2003 2:04 PM |
willschou1 |
. |
Rampel, The install OSX in the first 8gb partition of the drive only applies to IDE drives on old world machines. So if your using SCSI drives like it sounds like you are not an issue. ATA/PCI cards some see ide drives as SCSI and some as ide. Only ones which see the drive as ide have the 8gb limition. |
. |
RE: XPF (fixitjc) |
May, 10, 2003 10:24 AM |
rampel183 |
. |
fixitjc, Impressive, all this on a 8500. what about ventilation inside with the full hight drives? One Q important: Did you follow the (?) rule that X on unsupported must be installed on the 1st 8 Gigs of a drive? I now have 38.7 Gig IBM SCSI Ultrastar empty and want to be sure how to partition it. email me if you prefer: rampel@012.net.il |
. |
RE: XPF |
May, 10, 2003 6:29 AM |
tempest |
. |
You can try installing just the base which will use the first CD. After installation is successful, insert the 2nd CD and install the other packages. |
. |
RE: XPF (fixtic) |
May, 10, 2003 2:09 AM |
rampel183 |
. |
To fixtic: I envy you that's all I can say. I always format my drives with Apple's Drive Setup. nothing else. The contents of 10.2 CD 1 install disk DID get installed to the target drive. The critical stage is when CD 1 has finished it's job and the machine tries to re-boot, and eventually ask for CD 2. That - does not happen. |
. |
RE: XPF |
May, 09, 2003 7:26 PM |
fixitjc |
. |
I have looked on both of my 9.X drives and have not found any Private folder in the system folder. I have 10.2 installed on 2 drives one with 9.X and one without and I have 9.1 on a seperate drive by it self. Those files may have been Temp files left there from the unsuccessful installs. I run 5 drives all SCSI and have had few problems since day one. The largest were caused by my not getting XPF extentions installed on the right drive. I have always used the 9.1 Apple Drive setup program and have updated system software as it came out. Currently running 10.2.6. I have a PM 8500 / G3-500, 384 Meg RAM (all OWC 128's) 3-9 gig adapted 80 pin drives and 2 adapted 68 pin 47gig (full hight) drives running on the internal and external busses respectively, also an internal CD drive and an external CDR drive. I have stayed all Logic Board based SCSI partly because of all the problems I have read from folks that have added ATA cards and drives I have 1 - USB 1 , 1 - USB 2 and a firewire card with assorted items plugged into them at various times. I kept the USB 1 card since OS 9 doesn't seem to address the USB 2 card and my printer is USB Within these boundries I have pushed this machine pretty hard and use it every day. With all that said, I would go back and check that you have XPF properly installed and I would try the Apple formatting tool to format your drive. Good luck |
. |
RE: XPF |
May, 09, 2003 4:00 PM |
mjoecups358 |
. |
Use Mac OS 9.1... It works fine for classic, which you will soon not use anyhow... Marty |
. |
RE: XPF |
May, 09, 2003 3:36 PM |
rampel183 |
. |
tempest, I was not trying to install X on the SAME partition with 9.x. The target or destination disk for X was a separate unique drive/partition. The /private was first copied to the destination disk which is normal. I would not have bothered to check my 9.2.2 volume had it not started acting up and disrupting whatever I was doing. Mine being an "Unsupported" machine for running X, (Officially it is not supposed to run X - not even 9.2.2) so the workaround is a small app called XPF which should make it possible to install X from within 9. (See my earlier rants further down "Big problems installing 10.2 on a Legacy" |
. |
RE: XPF |
May, 09, 2003 3:01 PM |
tempest |
. |
OS X will never be as fast as OS 9 on the same hardware; however, OS X offers more stability while running a wider range of applications. One thing you may want to consider is to install OS X on a different partition/disk. I have done that ever since the Rhapsody previews and I have not had a significant problem with OS X affecting OS 9. /private should exist in your top level folder hierarchy, not within "System Folder." But then I have never installed OS X on top of an OS 9 partition. There is also a problem with file access of OS X files under OS 9. Sometimes you will not be able to read/access/trash OS X files depending on a file's permission. Having run into this quirk, I would always install OS X under a different partition from OS 9. |
|
|