In a mixed network, TCP/IP is nearly a must. There is no more commonly spoken
network language out there. The key word here is 'mixed'.
DHCP is a luxury, but good if you can do it. It's worth the setup time if
you've got machines coming and going. You can tell most DHCP servers to
allocate a
Vintage Macs wrote...
From: the pickle [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: my internet problem
At 01:59 +0100 on 10/04/02, Mark Benson wrote:
Yet another reason not to use 7.5 or higher, since VM before 8.1 was awful.
How would you characterize VM in 8.1 and later, then?
Bob F
--
Vintage Macs
--- rlf9 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Vintage Macs wrote...
From: the pickle [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: my internet problem
At 01:59 +0100 on 10/04/02, Mark Benson wrote:
Yet another reason not to use 7.5 or higher, since
VM before 8.1 was awful.
How would you characterize VM
On Wednesday, April 10, 2002, at 02:12 AM, the pickle wrote:
You shouldn't be running VM if at all possible anyway. Yet another
reason
not to use 7.5 or higher, since VM before 8.1 was awful.
I don't, I was just making the point :).
--
Mark Benson
Vintage Macs List Nanny
aka
On Wednesday, April 10, 2002, at 02:11 AM, the pickle wrote:
At 02:55 +0200 on 10/04/02, Marten van de Kraats wrote:
System 6 makes a whole lot of difference. You won't believe how much
better it is than system 7 at I/O stuff. It is a totally superior
server
OS. I can't help it. It is
On Wednesday, April 10, 2002, at 03:45 AM, Marten van de Kraats wrote:
Sys 6 is all well and good if you have a 1990 or earlier machine. It
Aren't those the machines this list is all about?
I quote from the FAQ...:
Vintage Macs is a forum for users of 68020 and 68030-based Macintosh
At 02:37 -0400 on 10/04/02, rlf9 wrote:
How would you characterize VM in 8.1 and later, then?
Not quite as bad. :)
It didn't really get *useful* until about 8.5-ish, but 8.1 is where I quit
using RAM Doubler and switched to Apple's VM for most stuff.
the pickle
FAQ
At 10:52 +0100 on 10/04/02, Mark Benson wrote:
I am trying to provide a solution I can easily hook another OS X machine
or a PC too should I have to. I am trying to create a flexible network
infrastructure not just a bit of wet string to talk to a few Macs. I
apologise again for swearing at you
On Wednesday, April 10, 2002, at 12:49 PM, the pickle wrote:
Yes. You didn't say anything like the following before.
AppleTalk for file sharing but also use other *internal* TCP/IP
services, such as my Intranet server on MY LCIII. If you can make iCab
work via AppleTalk without TCP/IP so
At 13:12 +0100 on 10/04/02, Mark Benson wrote:
I have definitely mentioned needing ahd having internal http somewhere.
I'm pretty sure you managed to hide it from Eagle and myself if you did :-p
trying to share the internet around this network (the whole point of
this thread - see the internet
On Wednesday, April 10, 2002, at 01:18 PM, the pickle wrote:
At 13:12 +0100 on 10/04/02, Mark Benson wrote:
I have definitely mentioned needing ahd having internal http somewhere.
I'm pretty sure you managed to hide it from Eagle and myself if you
did :-p
I quote (again) from a previous
On Wednesday, April 10, 2002, at 08:18 , the pickle wrote:
At 13:12 +0100 on 10/04/02, Mark Benson wrote:
I have definitely mentioned needing ahd having internal http somewhere.
I'm pretty sure you managed to hide it from Eagle and myself if you
did :-p
trying to share the internet around
The thread started by the list nanny began with this text:
I'm looking for a 56k modem for my LCIII or IIci. I don't have the IIci
yet but it eventually takes over as my server when I get it because 7.1
has less crap in it, which while being a bit limp as a desktop OS makes
it ideal for a
Vintage Macs wrote...
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 02:15:02 -0700 (PDT)
From: Gregg Eshelman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: my internet problem
In-Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- rlf9 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Vintage Macs wrote...
From: the pickle [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: my internet
On Wednesday, April 10, 2002, at 03:12 PM, Eagle wrote:
However, we were originally saying that *DNS* is not necessary when
Internet connectivity is nonexistent. That is indeed true: you can use
hosts files on each machine, but it does get tedius. You can set up any
machine in your network
So got any tips for configuring NAMED?
--
Mark Benson
Yep, just do some slight mods to the NetBSD files and you're up and running. :)
--
Randy
OS X - UNIX for the rest of us
NetBSD - Catch the Power!
--
Vintage Macs is sponsored by http://lowendmac.com/ and...
Small Dog Electronics
I'm looking for a 56k modem for my LCIII or IIci. I don't have the IIci
yet but it eventually takes over as my server when I get it because 7.1
has less crap in it, which while being a bit limp as a desktop OS makes
it ideal for a server.
If anyone has one that will work in the UK or knows
On dinsdag, april 9, 2002, at 10:16 , Mark Benson wrote:
I'm looking for a 56k modem for my LCIII or IIci. I don't have the IIci
yet but it eventually takes over as my server when I get it because 7.1
has less crap in it, which while being a bit limp as a desktop OS makes
it ideal for a
On Wednesday, April 10, 2002, at 12:04 AM, Marten van de Kraats wrote:
1. I understand you use a LCIII as a server, but you want to replace it
with a IIci because, you want to run 7.1. Why don't you install 7.1 on
your LCIII? It only needs a tiny enabler to run that.
I know that, it
On woensdag, april 10, 2002, at 01:43 , Mark Benson wrote:
BTW 7.1 won't make your server any faster.
Yes it will, it frees up lots of RAM by getting rid of stupid
unnecessary extensions I have found I can't turn off for one reason or
another in 7.6.1. It also uses less RAM itself and
On Wednesday, April 10, 2002, at 01:03 AM, Marten van de Kraats wrote:
That may all be true, but it won't improve the speed of file serving
with system 7.
Yes but in that case System 6 won't do much for it either because it
ultimately depends on the hardware, a you rightly say. A 68k Mac
At 00:43 +0100 on 10/04/02, Mark Benson wrote:
Yes it will, it frees up lots of RAM by getting rid of stupid
unnecessary extensions I have found I can't turn off for one reason or
another in 7.6.1. It also uses less RAM itself and has less CPU overhead
when running idle.
Now you're starting to
That may all be true, but it won't improve the speed of file serving
with system 7.
Yes but in that case System 6 won't do much for it either because it
ultimately depends on the hardware, a you rightly say. A 68k Mac
struggles to saturate 10baseT anyway (unless it's a late Quadra, that
On Wednesday, April 10, 2002, at 01:45 AM, the pickle wrote:
At 00:43 +0100 on 10/04/02, Mark Benson wrote:
Yes it will, it frees up lots of RAM by getting rid of stupid
unnecessary extensions I have found I can't turn off for one reason or
another in 7.6.1. It also uses less RAM itself
On woensdag, april 10, 2002, at 02:45 , the pickle wrote:
Good luck getting 6 running on an LC III anyway :)
You are not going to need luck if you replace the LCIII with a IIci,
which was the idea in the first place.
--
Check out the
On Wednesday, April 10, 2002, at 01:55 AM, Marten van de Kraats wrote:
Yes but in that case System 6 won't do much for it either because it
ultimately depends on the hardware, a you rightly say. A 68k Mac
struggles to saturate 10baseT anyway (unless it's a late Quadra, that
can saturate
At 02:55 +0200 on 10/04/02, Marten van de Kraats wrote:
System 6 makes a whole lot of difference. You won't believe how much
better it is than system 7 at I/O stuff. It is a totally superior server
OS. I can't help it. It is just the truth. System 7 is very inefficient.
Marten: open your
At 01:59 +0100 on 10/04/02, Mark Benson wrote:
Of course, simply freeing up RAM won't make file sharing any faster.
It does if it means there is RAM free to pass thru out going files. If
no RAM is free then the machine has to free it by moving stuff from the
RAM to VM and then sending the
On woensdag, april 10, 2002, at 03:11 , the pickle wrote:
Marten: open your freaking eyes already. System 6 doesn't run on any
Macs
made after about 1991.
And since when is the IIci a Mac made after about 1991?
--
Check out the
On woensdag, april 10, 2002, at 03:09 , Mark Benson wrote:
System 6 makes a whole lot of difference. You won't believe how much
better it is than system 7 at I/O stuff. It is a totally superior
server OS. I can't help it. It is just the truth. System 7 is very
inefficient.
Yes, you could
Subject: Re: my internet problem
From: Mark Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In-Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-Id: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
My server runs 7.6.1 and goes and goes and goes and.. you get the idea.
I have 3 System 7 machines (LC - 7.0.1 from it's original install disks,
SE/30 - 7.1, LCIII
31 matches
Mail list logo
