Successful 10.1.5 Install 8600/300!!! |
October, 27, 2002 1:57 AM |
pbell3 |
Spectacular! Used XPF 2.2.2, everything runs without a hitch. System running for 5 hours with numerous shutdowns, restarts into MacOS-9.1 from X"s "Startup Drive". Restarts to OS-9, then switching to OSX via XPF always. No hitches at all. Stock 8600 with 2 Quantum Viking HD's. 1). 2 gig ultrascsi (split terminated via adapter). 2). 4.5 gig standard fast-scsi drive. OS-9 on 2gig '0' drive. OSX on 4.5gig '1'. Everything works as advertised. Not one Panic. Had the thing on the internet and worked fine with IE-5.2.2. Oh, BTW; I used TechToolPro-3.0.7 to check over the system, and then defrag the drive (I like Norton Speed Disk better, but r6.03 can't see about 200 files [on my 10.2.1 iMac can't see about 6300 files, bad news). Then I ran Repair Permissions, IE needed many repairs. Perfect operation since! Questions: 1). Any words yet on proper sound output, pretty soft when I can hear it? 2). What news on the AV stuff? 3). Tried the Floppy Driver r.96, almost crashed the system. Went back to OS9, deleted everythng with the driver's name, and fixed the problem. Any hope somebody will get this to work without hanging Disk Utility, or goofing up the system? 4). Big important question. I am not clear on the L2 cache in the 8600/300. Since it is in the bridgecard at 100mhz, how is the cache.kext supposed to see and start it up? In other words, are you certain this cache is getting started (since the 8600/300 is buit much like the g4 type upgrade accellerators)? Just thought I'd pass my two cents and a few questions ! |
. |
RE: Successful 10.1.5 Install 8600/300!!! |
November, 02, 2002 2:03 PM |
OSXGuru |
. |
It's an interesting observation. I don't actually use the Mac OS X Startup Disk preference pane much myself--I simply reboot with the option key down to get back to Mac OS 9. I'll give the preference pane a try and see whether I can reproduce problems. (It used to work OK, but that may have changed). |
. |
RE: Successful 10.1.5 Install 8600/300!!! |
October, 28, 2002 9:33 PM |
pbell3 |
. |
I agree about the cache starting. Funny how many tools can see it in OS9, but almost nothing available in OSX, and most of THOSE don't work. Just a followup. Today I tried to startup the system (this is not my normal day- to-day system, I use an iMac/400 at home). Bad things began to happen. For one thing, it became difficult to start in OS9. Tended to freeze halfway into the boot. Forced restart helped. Fix was to Zap Pram in TechTool 3.0.4 (the free utility). System now boots reliable, but now I have to do this idiot workaround everytime I want to exit OSX and return to OS9. This makes pefect sense assuming there are problems with how Pram is handled between a New World System vs an Old World System. This suggests that XPostFacto must be written to work in OSX to setup the transfer properly for the OldWorld Pram. OSXGURU, please address this issue, as I think it has alot to do with what is causing these wierd transient problems experienced by almost everybody. I think the OSX "Startup Drive" control panel is loading Pram with junk, then things return but is now buggy. XPostFacto I think is fine by itself, in starting OSX. But after several switches from one system to another, things get increasingly bad until the two systems become almost unworkable. We're both seeing alot of posts dealing with screwed up Pram. You might recommend TechTool for those who want an alternative to the Old World VooDoo Dance (at least it will help those that are still partially working) . After all, TechTool zaps all 512 bytes of Pram except the incept date, and time-in-service. Anyhow, that's my two(2) cents so far. |
. |
RE: Successful 10.1.5 Install 8600/300!!! |
October, 27, 2002 11:40 AM |
wove |
. |
I have the same setup as yourself and have been trying to figure out if the cache is being used too. The stock answer seems to be that the ROM in the 8600 will start the cache working when the machine powers on. I moved to an 8600/300 from a 7500/200. That quadrupled the cache in size doubled its speed and added big bump to the processor speed, and yet I have never noticed that the 8600 is running any faster than the 7500. The system profiler in X identifies the cache on the 7500, while on the 8600 it says that no cache is present. I have tried several of the cache utilities and none of them work on the 8600/300 in fact most of them freeze the system. I am also curious how the cache is handled on these machine and I am not convinced that it is being used with OS X. William Ove |
|
|