From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.vintage

In article <slrns4ct35.ero.g.kreme@m1mini.local>, Lewis <g.kreme@kreme.dont-email.me> wrote:

In message <super70s-C1D707.07185208032021@reader02.eternal-september.org> super70s <super70s@super70s.invalid> wrote:

In article <X6ydnXue7Jgg5qD9nZ2dnUU7-amdnZ2d@earthlink.com>,
ant@zimage.comANT (Ant) wrote:

http://morrick.me/archives/9220

Snow Leopard was very stable but so was Tiger, if you're going the retro route I never saw an advantage of Snow Leopard over Tiger as long as you have a machine that can still run Tiger. With Tiger you have the
advantage of the regularly updated TenFourFox and its better security
than Firefox 45.9 on Snow Leopard. Unfortunately the developer of TenFourFox doesn't develop for anything past Leopard and the Power Mac
but he must have a good reason.

Nope, the reason is he wants to write for PowerPC.

There are MANY reasons to prefer Snow Leopard over Tiger, but both of
them as so ancient no one should be using either,

Tiger was the first Mac OS I ever used back in 2007, so it has a place
in my heart for sure. I eventually upgraded to Leopard but kinda always
felt Tiger was the nicer version of the OS. Once I got into vintage
Macs, if I was installing a flavour of OSX then Tiger was always my
preference over anything else.

I did eventually upgrade my MacBook to Snow Leopard and used that for
years on end, resisting further upgrades for quite a few revisions.
When I did finally get a new "bleeding edge" Mac Mini around 2016, the
latest OS on it was quite a culture shock!

On balance, I think Tiger was my favourite OSX, it always felt more
comfortable than anything else.
--
Fleet Fellow
--- Synchronet 3.20a-Linux NewsLink 1.114

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.vintage

On 2023-12-22, Stephen Thomas Cole <usenet@stephenthomascole.com> wrote:

In article <slrns4ct35.ero.g.kreme@m1mini.local>, Lewis
<g.kreme@kreme.dont-email.me> wrote:

In message <super70s-C1D707.07185208032021@reader02.eternal-september.org> >> super70s <super70s@super70s.invalid> wrote:

In article <X6ydnXue7Jgg5qD9nZ2dnUU7-amdnZ2d@earthlink.com>,
ant@zimage.comANT (Ant) wrote:

http://morrick.me/archives/9220

Snow Leopard was very stable but so was Tiger, if you're going the retro >> > route I never saw an advantage of Snow Leopard over Tiger as long as you >> > have a machine that can still run Tiger. With Tiger you have the
advantage of the regularly updated TenFourFox and its better security
than Firefox 45.9 on Snow Leopard. Unfortunately the developer of
TenFourFox doesn't develop for anything past Leopard and the Power Mac
but he must have a good reason.

Nope, the reason is he wants to write for PowerPC.

There are MANY reasons to prefer Snow Leopard over Tiger, but both of
them as so ancient no one should be using either,

Tiger was the first Mac OS I ever used back in 2007, so it has a place
in my heart for sure. I eventually upgraded to Leopard but kinda always
felt Tiger was the nicer version of the OS. Once I got into vintage
Macs, if I was installing a flavour of OSX then Tiger was always my preference over anything else.

I did eventually upgrade my MacBook to Snow Leopard and used that for
years on end, resisting further upgrades for quite a few revisions.
When I did finally get a new "bleeding edge" Mac Mini around 2016, the
latest OS on it was quite a culture shock!

On balance, I think Tiger was my favourite OSX, it always felt more comfortable than anything else.

I have no clue what year this message thread surfaced from, but here
goes...

I have a Mac mini partitioned to run both Tiger and Leopard. I believe
Tiger was the last macOS version to support running "Classic" (macOS 9)
apps, and Leopard was the first macOS version to feature Time Machine.

So... There are a few apps on the Tiger side that I believe I "need" in
this day and age, and will actually be using fairly soon, and Time
Machine on the Leopard side, though somewhat unstable, lets me do my
backups.

Jumping forward... On the same table I have a plastic MacBook running
Yosemite. It's able to run El Capitán, but that'sa toooo sloooow.
--
ATTN Google Groups users: I filter out your posts and will not see them. chrispam1@me.com is an infrequently monitored address. Email may get lost.
--- Synchronet 3.20a-Linux NewsLink 1.114

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.vintage

In article <um4trd$90cs$1@solani.org>, Chris Schram <chrispam1@me.com>
wrote:

On 2023-12-22, Stephen Thomas Cole <usenet@stephenthomascole.com> wrote:

Tiger was the first Mac OS I ever used back in 2007, so it has a place
in my heart for sure. I eventually upgraded to Leopard but kinda always felt Tiger was the nicer version of the OS. Once I got into vintage
Macs, if I was installing a flavour of OSX then Tiger was always my preference over anything else.

I did eventually upgrade my MacBook to Snow Leopard and used that for
years on end, resisting further upgrades for quite a few revisions.
When I did finally get a new "bleeding edge" Mac Mini around 2016, the latest OS on it was quite a culture shock!

On balance, I think Tiger was my favourite OSX, it always felt more comfortable than anything else.

I have no clue what year this message thread surfaced from, but here
goes...

Ha, sorry about the thread necromancy. Yeah, it's a 2021 thread... :)

I have a Mac mini partitioned to run both Tiger and Leopard. I believe
Tiger was the last macOS version to support running "Classic" (macOS 9)
apps, and Leopard was the first macOS version to feature Time Machine.

Yup, Tiger was last OSX that ran Classic Mode.

So... There are a few apps on the Tiger side that I believe I "need" in
this day and age, and will actually be using fairly soon, and Time
Machine on the Leopard side, though somewhat unstable, lets me do my
backups.

Jumping forward... On the same table I have a plastic MacBook running Yosemite. It's able to run El Capitán, but that'sa toooo sloooow.

I've got a (2009?) Mac Pro packed away in the shed that I installed El
Capitan to via a firmware hack. It ran it like an absolute champ, used
it as a photo retouching workstation for a couple of years because my
2016 "bleeding edge" Mac Mini struggled with the latest version of
Adobe CC... Interestingly, when I switched out the stock hard drive for
a SSD that problem pretty much disappeared.

Anyway, point I was getting to was that it's impressive how, in
general, Macs have good forward compatibility and will often work fine
with several later generations of OS.
--
Fleet Fellow
--- Synchronet 3.20a-Linux NewsLink 1.114

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.vintage

On 2023-12-23, scole <fleet101k@gmail.com> wrote:

In article <um4trd$90cs$1@solani.org>, Chris Schram <chrispam1@me.com>
wrote:

On 2023-12-22, Stephen Thomas Cole <usenet@stephenthomascole.com> wrote:

Tiger was the first Mac OS I ever used back in 2007, so it has a place
in my heart for sure. I eventually upgraded to Leopard but kinda always
felt Tiger was the nicer version of the OS. Once I got into vintage
Macs, if I was installing a flavour of OSX then Tiger was always my
preference over anything else.

I did eventually upgrade my MacBook to Snow Leopard and used that for
years on end, resisting further upgrades for quite a few revisions.
When I did finally get a new "bleeding edge" Mac Mini around 2016, the
latest OS on it was quite a culture shock!

On balance, I think Tiger was my favourite OSX, it always felt more
comfortable than anything else.

I have no clue what year this message thread surfaced from, but here
goes...

Ha, sorry about the thread necromancy. Yeah, it's a 2021 thread... :)

I have a Mac mini partitioned to run both Tiger and Leopard. I believe
Tiger was the last macOS version to support running "Classic" (macOS 9)
apps, and Leopard was the first macOS version to feature Time Machine.

Yup, Tiger was last OSX that ran Classic Mode.

So... There are a few apps on the Tiger side that I believe I "need" in
this day and age, and will actually be using fairly soon, and Time
Machine on the Leopard side, though somewhat unstable, lets me do my
backups.

Jumping forward... On the same table I have a plastic MacBook running
Yosemite. It's able to run El Capitán, but that'sa toooo sloooow.

I've got a (2009?) Mac Pro packed away in the shed that I installed El Capitan to via a firmware hack. It ran it like an absolute champ, used
it as a photo retouching workstation for a couple of years because my
2016 "bleeding edge" Mac Mini struggled with the latest version of
Adobe CC... Interestingly, when I switched out the stock hard drive for
a SSD that problem pretty much disappeared.

Anyway, point I was getting to was that it's impressive how, in
general, Macs have good forward compatibility and will often work fine
with several later generations of OS.

I have had two old Macs that benefitted wildly from an SSD infusion. I
had an SSD for a while in that plastic MacBook I mentioned above, and it
ran El Capitán at a very acceptable speed. When I eventually upgraded to
new hardware, I reverted it back to the original spinning rust drive,
and downgraded to macOS Yosemite. The SSD then became the Time Machine
volume for the new Mac in the house.

Another story: I had an Intel iMac that ran just fine up until MacOS
Catalina, which brought it to its metaphorical knees. I plugged an SSD
into a Thunderbolt port, making it the new boot drive, and ran with that through another version or two of macOS, until the iMac finally gave up
the ghost.

Yes, SSDs are wondrous things.
--
ATTN Google Groups users: I filter out your posts and will not see them. chrispam1@me.com is an infrequently monitored address. Email may get lost.
--- Synchronet 3.20a-Linux NewsLink 1.114

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.vintage

In article <um69ji$9ljb$1@solani.org>, Chris Schram <chrispam1@me.com>
wrote:

Yes, SSDs are wondrous things.

The machine I'm posting on now, a Power Mac G4 MDD 1.25Ghz, have a pair
of 120GB SSDs hooked to a Sonnet Tempo SATA PCI card. The performance
of this computer (running OS9 and with 1.5GB RAM) is simply phenomenal.
I mean, yeah, it should be, it's an already high-end workstation
further souped up and running an OS that debuted many years before this
kind of machine spec was available. But it's still hellish impressive
to use.

I am refurbishing a Power Macintosh 9600 at the moment, my plan is to
use a SCSI to SD interface and have that as the sole drive in. I guess
we could call that SSD too? I had that arrangement in an LCIII+ a few
years ago, was light years faster than the creaky old SCSI drive that
was in it originally. I've since put that SD card and adapter into an
Apple external SCSI drive unit, which kinda amuses me having such a
clash of technologies in a box.
--
Fleet Fellow
--- Synchronet 3.20a-Linux NewsLink 1.114

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.vintage

In article <241220231153077748%fleet101k@gmail.com>, fleet101k@gmail.com wrote:

I am refurbishing a Power Macintosh 9600 at the moment, my plan is to
use a SCSI to SD interface and have that as the sole drive in. I guess
we could call that SSD too? I had that arrangement in an LCIII+ a few
years ago, was light years faster than the creaky old SCSI drive that
was in it originally. I've since put that SD card and adapter into an
Apple external SCSI drive unit, which kinda amuses me having such a
clash of technologies in a box.

I've found that the newer (and cheaper) blueSCSI devices tend to be faster
than the old scsi2sd devices I would putting in retro macs a few years
ago. They also have wifi now too. I wouldn't consider these devices to be
true SSDs however, more like adapters.

It would be cool if someone made a true SSD to SCSI device, though I don't think it would make any noticable difference on an old mac like the LC
III.
--- Synchronet 3.20a-Linux NewsLink 1.114

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.vintage

In article <denodster-0101241941580001@192.168.1.200>, Denodster <denodster@gmail.com> wrote:

In article <241220231153077748%fleet101k@gmail.com>, fleet101k@gmail.com wrote:

I am refurbishing a Power Macintosh 9600 at the moment, my plan is to
use a SCSI to SD interface and have that as the sole drive in. I guess
we could call that SSD too? I had that arrangement in an LCIII+ a few
years ago, was light years faster than the creaky old SCSI drive that
was in it originally. I've since put that SD card and adapter into an
Apple external SCSI drive unit, which kinda amuses me having such a
clash of technologies in a box.

I've found that the newer (and cheaper) blueSCSI devices tend to be faster than the old scsi2sd devices I would putting in retro macs a few years
ago. They also have wifi now too. I wouldn't consider these devices to be true SSDs however, more like adapters.

I've already got a spare scsi2sd board that I was going to use, but I
might as well get a blueSCSI and give that a try in the 9600. I only
intend to install OS7.6.1 on it, considering that I'm going to have a
G3 or G4 Sonnet CPU in the machine alongside 1.5GB RAM, it's going to b
a hell of a thing.
--
Fleet Fellow
--- Synchronet 3.20a-Linux NewsLink 1.114

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.vintage

In article <denodster-0101241941580001@192.168.1.200>,
denodster@gmail.com (Denodster) wrote:

In article <241220231153077748%fleet101k@gmail.com>, fleet101k@gmail.com wrote:

I am refurbishing a Power Macintosh 9600 at the moment, my plan is to
use a SCSI to SD interface and have that as the sole drive in. I guess
we could call that SSD too? I had that arrangement in an LCIII+ a few
years ago, was light years faster than the creaky old SCSI drive that
was in it originally. I've since put that SD card and adapter into an
Apple external SCSI drive unit, which kinda amuses me having such a
clash of technologies in a box.

I've found that the newer (and cheaper) blueSCSI devices tend to be faster than the old scsi2sd devices I would putting in retro macs a few years
ago. They also have wifi now too. I wouldn't consider these devices to be true SSDs however, more like adapters.

It would be cool if someone made a true SSD to SCSI device, though I don't think it would make any noticable difference on an old mac like the LC
III.

Did you use a new SD card with the BlueSCSI? I'm wondering if it indeed
is faster than, say, a scsi2sd v.5 or it was rather the old install in
the scsi2sd versus a freshly formatted new SD card. (performance is
likely to somewhat degrade over time)

Anyway, would appreciate any info you can give on this. With the new
WiFi capabilities of BlueSCSI, I'm seriously thinking of getting one for
my Mac IIci.
--- Synchronet 3.20a-Linux NewsLink 1.114