Hard disk not found

[bluekatt]

i hate 7 i hate classic as a whole actually
i tolerate os 9 barley because its stil somewhat relevant but im a pure os X user
system 7 gets nothing more then a cursory glance and scorn from me

i would never use it for any meaningful task not system 7 not mac os 8 or 9

 

[zeyhra]

That's not entirely the point bluekatt... the point was more to get a 12-year-old machine up and running and restored to it's original operating system for the fun of it! How often can a person actually say they got a 12-year-old computer up and running its original operating system? Most hardware that old has long since been trashed/recycled, so to actually have the pieces is something in itself!

(Daydreamer: will post my results when I get my ancient system up and running... have to clear some space on my desk first! Fun project for the winter!)

 

[bluekatt]

that is the point os 9 is a dead operating system ( thankfully) and day dreamer said i should instal 7.5 on my pm 9600 i explained why i wont do that because i hate 7

and actually i can say i have an ancient computer up and running
twice
three times
...four times
okay five then

an mac classic from october 1990 running system 6 with 2 mb ram and a 40 mb hd
thats 16 years old
and a mac se with 4 mb ram mac os 7.5.5 claris works and a 60 mb hd
thats 18 years old
the tube of the se is starting to fail i can see scan lines through the resolution
the machines are quaint but i wont run them for any longer period of time then 10 minutes because i cant stand the os

aformentioned hosed out pm 9600
wel ? what ? it is nearly a decade old

a pm 6100 yes it has a G3 but its still 13 years old

and finally a 5300
11 years old it never spontaniously self combusted
it wil never win any speed tests either

 

[Daydreamer]

That was merely only a tip to run as old and as new an OS as possible on the same machine (that's what I would try to do... I don't have the same nostalgia trip running DOS on a PC though, else I'd do the same thing there), it's of course up to you what you do with your machines. Personally I like parts of Mac OS/System 7-9 better than I do parts of X (and vice versa, both systems have their strong points with X being better overall, IMO).

As for meaningful tasks... not really, a few old games that won't run nicely under classic, but that's about it.

 

[bluekatt]

i would prefer to run the newest os as possible on it
i have no love nor interest nor software or attachment to these old machines and software
i started using the mac serioulsy when jaguar was released so i am a full os X user
i would use them for a few games or just to look at but thats is about it
and if i can get away by using mac os 8 or 9 instead of 7 i wil gladly do that

the only older operating systems i would want to try on older machines are the really obscure beasts
a\ux rhapsody beos copland next step
that kind of thing

but system 7 ?...god no >.< it is that my se and classic can only go to 7 other wise i would load 8 on them with glee

this is alink to a classic with a supra fax modem apprantly >>http://www.obsoletecomputermuseum.org/macclass/romanmac.gif

and i have seen floppy driven compacts who are able to go online

 

[Daydreamer]

That's understandable... I began my Macintosh (and computer overall) experience with System 7.0.1 on dad's PowerBook 140 (I think it was), and then I got my own Performa 475 with System 7.1 in 1994 (right before the 680x0's got fully replaced with PPC's *grumble*), so I'm in a different position than you are in that case. I have memories from those systems, and besides I like seeing that the old and new (and vastly different systems - including obscure beasts) actually can work together smoothly.

I highly doubt that the macintoshes (or computers at all for that matter) from that time were made to be hooked up to a modern DSL line, but here I am, thanks to ethernet, TCP/IP, and Windows 2000 Server's File Sharing Services for Macintosh.

 

[bluekatt]

i started my computer life onan old commodore 8088 5 mhz pc with do 4.1
( i hold no good memories on that os apart from wp 5.1 and that i seemed a whole lot more productive back in the time )
i once wanted a used mac but it was too expensive so i went for the old pc instead
after that came a p1 120 mhz wwith windows 95 till 2002 when i got a 233 mhz imac with mac os 8.6 it worked for a while til it died
then i got a used imac dv 400 mhz with mac os X and i knew that was it for me

i never really liked mac os 8.6 and i really look down on 6 and 7 especially 7 what is supposed to be feature laden big expansive etc i merley see as clunky archaic and ugly even windows 95 looks better
i like to run older system just for the hell of it
but normally i gravitate to the newst system as possible
they dont have to be absolutley new if something works i am liable to stick with it
i refuse to upgrade forefox to 2.0 because 1.5 work sjust fine
i also refuse to upgrade itunes from 4 to 7 because i cant stand the new interface

il stick with as long as its os x
to give you an indication jaguar is the lowest ill accept for any meaningfull work

 

[Daydreamer]

To be honest, I didn't use OS X before Panther, nor did I use any Mac OS classic after 8.1 for "real" (it was the last that would run on my Performa 475, and my next computer ran Windows 98 but soon got upgraded to 2000), it was only last year that I got a Performa 6200 and thus could run Mac OS 8.5 to 9.1 (the latter of which it's running now, I've tried getting it to run 9.2 but that darned os9helper refuses to patch the update files). So, yeah, I too try to push the hardware to its limits and run the latest OS possible, just because it is possible, but still I do enjoy the cleanliness of System 7, and in some ways even Windows 3.1.

Oh well, to each his own, right?

 

[bluekatt]

thats right
i on the other hand dispise the uglyness of system 7 its percieved cleanliness i see as a weakness to me its a rather pale imitation of a version of classic that is borderline usable 8 and up

windows 3.1 is the stuff of nightmares to me

even though i dislike classic to the extreme i do think its amazing that a mac plus from 1986 or a mac se like mine from 87 can run system 7.5.5 an os from 1995
or that my powerbook 5300 from 95 can run all versions of classic up to mac os 9.1 from 2001
try that with a pc from 95 and xp it wil choke

a feature i like from the classic is that it can boot from an os in its rom
very usefull
pity apple didnt continue doing that
but the cost of 2 mb roms woudl have been prohibitive and also why would people buy an os then if its hard wired in to their mac

stil a nifty feature

 

[Daydreamer]

a feature i like from the classic is that it can boot from an os in its rom
very usefull
pity apple didnt continue doing that
but the cost of 2 mb roms woudl have been prohibitive and also why would people buy an os then if its hard wired in to their mac

stil a nifty feature

The system on the HDD was still pre-installed on the machine and came on floppy discs for eventual re-installs (or so I presume, since I've read that the classic shipped with 6.0.8 but the ROM version was 6.0.3), and you can't add extensions and stuff to the ROM.

The analogy is the same to saying why would people buy an OS when it comes pre-installed on the machine... and it's correct, most people don't bother upgrading the OS but instead continue using whatever came with the computer until they get a new one (at least for PC users, I don't have enough data to make any strong assumption for Macintosh users but I suspect the upgrading numbers may be higher).

 

[bluekatt]

thats not entirley true acorn with risc os had the os mostly burned in the rom
and it did not stop the system from being patched and upgraded just when you hosed the hd or removed the upgrades you would need to start all over again

i think apple did not do it because of the cost of the rom chips and that people would most likley not upgrade the system

i hang in between the upgraders and non upgraders i tend to prefer to use the oem system that came with the computer because it was tailored for the computer