USB Question
Eeep! I plugged a Targus 4-Port hub into another of my UB Hubs (it i powered) and now that Hub appears to have died. Now That hub i plugged into another Hub and has always worked fine. So, I then plugged the Targus into one of the UB port on my G4 Quickilver (OS X 10.4.11) and now that one seems to not be working. Targus says thi hub work under OS X 10.2 or higher. Will a reboot of this Mac fix this issue? Targus (at least on the packaging) has no support phone number in the US (Australia New Zealand have listed numbers) -- Steve Conrad Henrietta, MO 64036 The time has come for mankind to grow up and leave its cradle behind; to go forth and claim our place in outer space. - Capt. Henry Gloval (\__/) (='.'=) ()_() Help Bunny Take Over The World! -- You received this message because you are a member of G-Group, a group for those using G3, G4, and G5 desktop Macs - with a particular focus on Power Macs. The list FAQ is at http://lowendmac.com/lists/g-list.shtml and our netiquette guide is at http://www.lowendmac.com/lists/netiquette.shtml To post to this group, send email to g3-5-list@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/g3-5-list
latest mac mini for 10.4.11
I am thinking to move on from my fearless old sawtooth to a mini, but I'm not ready for the jump to 10.5. From what I read on this Apple page the latest models that are fully compatible with 10.4.11 are the mid 2007 models http://support.apple.com/kb/HT1159 (versions no later than MB139xx/A) It says Do not use a Mac OS X version earlier than the one included with the computer. How true is this? How true is it that my old cd set of 10.4 may not be compatible with a much later mini either? thanks! Del -- You received this message because you are a member of G-Group, a group for those using G3, G4, and G5 desktop Macs - with a particular focus on Power Macs. The list FAQ is at http://lowendmac.com/lists/g-list.shtml and our netiquette guide is at http://www.lowendmac.com/lists/netiquette.shtml To post to this group, send email to g3-5-list@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/g3-5-list
Re: eSATA transfer speed
At 10:27 PM -0500 8/21/2010, Kris Tilford wrote: On Aug 21, 2010, at 9:32 PM, Dan wrote: SeriTek 1V4 is SATA I, 1.5 Gbps burst, 150 MB/sec (1.2 Gbps) nominal on a good day. This isn't exactly right. Copied below [snip] SeriTek/1VE2+2 The card in question is a 1V4 not a 1VE2+2. The specs were obtained from FirmTek's spec page pertaining to the 1V4. At 8:00 PM -0700 8/21/2010, John Carmonne wrote: On Aug 21, 2010, at 7:32 PM, Dan wrote: At 2:58 PM -0700 8/21/2010, John Carmonne wrote: SeriTek 1V4 in my PM G4 and PM G5 the transfer speed is 88 sec's per GB on a 114 GB CCC. I was under the impression it would a lot faster than this I seem to remember a 3 GB per min claim. Both HDD's are 2TB 7200 RPM Hitahci's in the PM G5. SeriTek 1V4 is SATA I, 1.5 Gbps burst, 150 MB/sec (1.2 Gbps) nominal on a good day. eSATA, by its nature, runs a bit slower. What model Hitachi drives? Exactly what type of backup were you doing? File or block oriented? Virgin or a merge into an existing volume? Virgin copy with CCC Again, file or block oriented - Incremental or Backup everything? This makes a big difference. The file oriented backup is moving one file at a time and building a *new* file system, whereas the everything mode is moving whole streams of blocks and doing no file system work (it just copies the file system itself as a stream of blocks too - including whatever errors be there). The latter should be much faster. 114 GB DVD images and toast images is taking 2.8 hours Not sure what that means. Are you saying 114 GB total, files that are DVD images, or are you saying 114 files, 4.2 to 4.7 GB each or are these double-layer (8 GB) images or ? How much actual data are you talking about? I think USB will do that but I haven't tried that to be sure. The enclosure for the eSATA drive is an inexpensive SABERENT USB eSATA IDE SATA model could that be a problem? The machine is a PM G5 Dual 2.7. The Drives are as follows [snip newegg url] Deskstar 7K2000, 2 TB, 7200 rpm, 32 MB cache. 3 Gbps SATA III interface. The media is rated at 1621 Mbps max (202 MB/sec). That max is basically a mixed mode (r and w) burst rate. It benchmarks at around 100 to 160 MB/sec write. ...Remember that writing is always slower than reading, because it has to load the cache then perform the actual write, whereas reading can take advantage of pre-loading etc. Ok, so figure a nominal write of 120 MB/sec. That's about 1 GB every 8 1/2 secs. Note of course that CCC's throughput is NOT a good measure of a drive. It's doing a lot of file system work and error checking. Also make sure that Spotlight's indexing is disabled on the target - otherwise it will be massively slowing down CCC, trying indexing things as CCC writes. As for your external boxes throughput,,, no telling there without some serious testing. Some subjective observations: I've noticed my cheap external boxes run at about half to 3/4 the speed on USB as my more-expensive LaCie d2 Quadra box. Firewire speeds aren't as bad but still slower. Haven't tried eSATA. Back to your OP... 88 sec's per GB is a rather odd way of saying throughput. Where did you get that? With nothing else running on your system, try observing the throughput using Activity Monitor's Disk Activity pane... A better way to check the throughput of a drive set-up, I think, would be to use a dd command from Terminal. It can be used to test a single drive by filling a file with zeroes, then it automatically reports the throughput. First, create a fairly large test file and put it on the device you want to test. dd if=/dev/zero bs=1024 count=1048576 of=/Volumes/MyTestHD/gigabyte.file When finished, dd will report its performance. Since the data (all zeros!) came from the aether, there's no read time - this is pure write. Now read that 1 GB file and throw the bits back into the aether, so you have pure read timing. dd if=/Volumes/MyTestHD/gigabyte.file of=/dev/null ( if stands for input file, of is output file) Note that it will take a little while for these commands to run, seeing as they're flinging around a billion bytes. If you hit ^T (control t), some intermediate status info will be shown. You could use any large file to do the test. The first dd command above is just an easy way to create a big one. Of course, the test results will be more accurate if your i/o buses are NOT busy doing other things. So be sure to quit your apps... HTH, - Dan. -- - Psychoceramic Emeritus; South Jersey, USA, Earth. -- You received this message because you are a member of G-Group, a group for those using G3, G4, and G5 desktop Macs - with a particular focus on Power Macs. The list FAQ is at http://lowendmac.com/lists/g-list.shtml and our netiquette guide is at http://www.lowendmac.com/lists/netiquette.shtml To post to this group, send email to g3-5-list@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group
Re: USB Question
At 7:05 AM -0500 8/22/2010, Stephen Conrad wrote: I plugged a Targus 4-Port hub into another of my UB Hubs (it i powered) and now that Hub appears to have died. Now That hub i plugged into another Hub and has always worked fine. Perhaps the Targus has a short? So, I then plugged the Targus into one of the UB port on my G4 Quickilver (OS X 10.4.11) and now that one seems to not be working. You took a hub with a problem and plugged it into your Mac? Wow. Um Not a good plan. Will a reboot of this Mac fix this issue? If the OS shut down the port because it sensed some problem, then yes - a reboot should restore it, IF it managed to shut it down before the port fried. If the OS did that then there will be a message in the system log. - Dan. -- - Psychoceramic Emeritus; South Jersey, USA, Earth. -- You received this message because you are a member of G-Group, a group for those using G3, G4, and G5 desktop Macs - with a particular focus on Power Macs. The list FAQ is at http://lowendmac.com/lists/g-list.shtml and our netiquette guide is at http://www.lowendmac.com/lists/netiquette.shtml To post to this group, send email to g3-5-list@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/g3-5-list
Re: latest mac mini for 10.4.11
On Aug 22, 2010, at 9:21 AM, MnDel dsmn...@gmail.com wrote: I am thinking to move on from my fearless old sawtooth to a mini, but I'm not ready for the jump to 10.5. Why? From what I read on this Apple page the latest models that are fully compatible with 10.4.11 are the mid 2007 models http://support.apple.com/kb/HT1159 (versions no later than MB139xx/A) It says Do not use a Mac OS X version earlier than the one included with the computer. How true is this? Very true. Earlier releases will not contain the hardware drivers necessary for newer Macs. How true is it that my old cd set of 10.4 may not be compatible with a much later mini either? Your CD set is not compatible with any intel Mac. It only has PPC code on it and won't even boot let alone install. The only 10.4 disc with Intel code (I think) is a later release of 10.4 Server. thanks! Del -- You received this message because you are a member of G-Group, a group for those using G3, G4, and G5 desktop Macs - with a particular focus on Power Macs. The list FAQ is at http://lowendmac.com/lists/g-list.shtml and our netiquette guide is at http://www.lowendmac.com/lists/netiquette.shtml To post to this group, send email to g3-5-list@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/g3-5-list -- You received this message because you are a member of G-Group, a group for those using G3, G4, and G5 desktop Macs - with a particular focus on Power Macs. The list FAQ is at http://lowendmac.com/lists/g-list.shtml and our netiquette guide is at http://www.lowendmac.com/lists/netiquette.shtml To post to this group, send email to g3-5-list@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/g3-5-list
Re: Digital Audio Processor Swap
On Aug 21, 2010, at 9:33 PM, Sarge3041969 wrote: Hey all, I have read through some of the older threads for info, but could not find anything quite like this so here goes: I have a G4 digital audio 466mhz system that I would like to do some upgrades to, but nothing extreme. I want to start out by speeding it up a little, so I bought a used processor out of a 733mhz Quicksilver system. A friend of mine told me it Could be made to work so, I bought it. Now, I didn't get the heatsink and fan with it. So can the old 466 cooler be modded with a fan to work? Or, will I have to keep looking for the QS 733 goods. At present there aren't any on e-bay. I can still run the Mac as it is and wait if I have to, and I have not test fitted or altered anything yet. I am putting this machine together on the cheap just to have something to mess with, but at the same time I don't want to damage anything by overheating it out of stupidity either. LOL I am going to be doing some other upgrades later, but wanted to get a faster processor first. Thanks! The simplest way to increase speed is to max out memory followed by replacing the, (if by chance the original Apple), hard drive drive. You would be surprised on just how much improvement can be had. Modifying a faster processor from a later machine can open a can of worms. Rather than do that, I would just look for a later model of machine IF that is what you really want. Just my 2¢ worth... JT HR Certificate Online SHRM Approved Human resources Certificate Program. Learn More Now! http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL3241/4c7144aa1ace37d5740st05duc -- You received this message because you are a member of G-Group, a group for those using G3, G4, and G5 desktop Macs - with a particular focus on Power Macs. The list FAQ is at http://lowendmac.com/lists/g-list.shtml and our netiquette guide is at http://www.lowendmac.com/lists/netiquette.shtml To post to this group, send email to g3-5-list@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/g3-5-list
Re: latest mac mini for 10.4.11
On Aug 22, 2010, at 8:07 AM, Chance Reecher wrote: Your CD set is not compatible with any intel Mac. It only has PPC code on it and won't even boot let alone install. The only 10.4 disc with Intel code (I think) is a later release of 10.4 Server. 10.4.8 was made as Intel. Possibly also as Universal. -- You received this message because you are a member of G-Group, a group for those using G3, G4, and G5 desktop Macs - with a particular focus on Power Macs. The list FAQ is at http://lowendmac.com/lists/g-list.shtml and our netiquette guide is at http://www.lowendmac.com/lists/netiquette.shtml To post to this group, send email to g3-5-list@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/g3-5-list
Re: latest mac mini for 10.4.11
On Aug 22, 2010, at 10:55 AM, Peter Haas wrote: 10.4.8 was made as Intel. Possibly also as Universal. My understanding is that Intel Macs are not installable from any retail Mac OS X Tiger install set, and especially not from a PowerPC Mac mini restore set. Regards, Dan Palka Info-Mac Moderator http://www.info-mac.org d...@info-mac.org -- You received this message because you are a member of G-Group, a group for those using G3, G4, and G5 desktop Macs - with a particular focus on Power Macs. The list FAQ is at http://lowendmac.com/lists/g-list.shtml and our netiquette guide is at http://www.lowendmac.com/lists/netiquette.shtml To post to this group, send email to g3-5-list@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/g3-5-list
Re: latest mac mini for 10.4.11
On Aug 22, 2010, at 8:58 AM, Dan Palka wrote: ... and especially not from a PowerPC Mac mini restore set. Well, that is definitely a given (a PPC-only install DVD). But there exist 10.4.x universal installers. I am pretty sure I have one, somewhere. -- You received this message because you are a member of G-Group, a group for those using G3, G4, and G5 desktop Macs - with a particular focus on Power Macs. The list FAQ is at http://lowendmac.com/lists/g-list.shtml and our netiquette guide is at http://www.lowendmac.com/lists/netiquette.shtml To post to this group, send email to g3-5-list@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/g3-5-list
Re: latest mac mini for 10.4.11
On Aug 22, 2010, at 8:07 AM, Chance Reecher wrote: Your CD set is not compatible with any intel Mac. It only has PPC code on it and won't even boot let alone install. The only 10.4 disc with Intel code (I think) is a later release of 10.4 Server. Where can I find a copy of 10.4 server? John Carmonne Yorba Linda USA Sent from my MBP -- You received this message because you are a member of G-Group, a group for those using G3, G4, and G5 desktop Macs - with a particular focus on Power Macs. The list FAQ is at http://lowendmac.com/lists/g-list.shtml and our netiquette guide is at http://www.lowendmac.com/lists/netiquette.shtml To post to this group, send email to g3-5-list@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/g3-5-list
Re: latest mac mini for 10.4.11
On Aug 22, 2010, at 8:27 AM, John Carmonne wrote: Where can I find a copy of 10.4 server? LEM is the best place. ePay is always a possibility. Even with 10.5 Server, the installation DVDs were Universal. At least the one I bought is Universal. -- You received this message because you are a member of G-Group, a group for those using G3, G4, and G5 desktop Macs - with a particular focus on Power Macs. The list FAQ is at http://lowendmac.com/lists/g-list.shtml and our netiquette guide is at http://www.lowendmac.com/lists/netiquette.shtml To post to this group, send email to g3-5-list@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/g3-5-list
Re: latest mac mini for 10.4.11
On Aug 22, 2010, at 11:24 AM, Peter Haas wrote: Even with 10.5 Server, the installation DVDs were Universal. At least the one I bought is Universal. All retail Leopard sets are universal. This was not the case for Tiger because upon Tiger's initial release Intels didn't exist. Since every Intel came with at least Tiger, there was no need to make universal Tiger retail installs. Why would anybody need to buy a retail copy of Tiger to install on their Intel. Regards, Dan Palka Info-Mac Moderator http://www.info-mac.org d...@info-mac.org -- You received this message because you are a member of G-Group, a group for those using G3, G4, and G5 desktop Macs - with a particular focus on Power Macs. The list FAQ is at http://lowendmac.com/lists/g-list.shtml and our netiquette guide is at http://www.lowendmac.com/lists/netiquette.shtml To post to this group, send email to g3-5-list@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/g3-5-list
Re: latest mac mini for 10.4.11
At 8:55 AM -0700 8/22/2010, Peter Haas wrote: On Aug 22, 2010, at 8:07 AM, Chance Reecher wrote: Your CD set is not compatible with any intel Mac. It only has PPC code on it and won't even boot let alone install. The only 10.4 disc with Intel code (I think) is a later release of 10.4 Server. 10.4.8 was made as Intel. Possibly also as Universal. No. The Tiger retail kit is ppc only. PowerPC based Macs came with ppc-only Tiger. x86 based Macs came with a special build, x86 only, of Tiger. There were NO universal Tiger builds. Leopard's retail kit is Universal (ppc x86). - Dan. -- - Psychoceramic Emeritus; South Jersey, USA, Earth. -- You received this message because you are a member of G-Group, a group for those using G3, G4, and G5 desktop Macs - with a particular focus on Power Macs. The list FAQ is at http://lowendmac.com/lists/g-list.shtml and our netiquette guide is at http://www.lowendmac.com/lists/netiquette.shtml To post to this group, send email to g3-5-list@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/g3-5-list
Re: latest mac mini for 10.4.11
On Aug 22, 2010, at 9:13 AM, Peter Haas wrote: On Aug 22, 2010, at 8:58 AM, Dan Palka wrote: ... and especially not from a PowerPC Mac mini restore set. Well, that is definitely a given (a PPC-only install DVD). But there exist 10.4.x universal installers. I am pretty sure I have one, somewhere. I have 10.4 Universal but it will not install on a Mini. John Carmonne Yorba Linda USA Sent from my MBP -- You received this message because you are a member of G-Group, a group for those using G3, G4, and G5 desktop Macs - with a particular focus on Power Macs. The list FAQ is at http://lowendmac.com/lists/g-list.shtml and our netiquette guide is at http://www.lowendmac.com/lists/netiquette.shtml To post to this group, send email to g3-5-list@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/g3-5-list
Re: latest mac mini for 10.4.11
On Aug 22, 2010, at 11:51 AM, John Carmonne wrote: I have 10.4 Universal but it will not install on a Mini. That's because 10.4 was never released as a Universal. It had a Retail disc, but it was PPC ONLY. Intel versions shipped with the machines they were intended to run on and were machine-specific. -- You received this message because you are a member of G-Group, a group for those using G3, G4, and G5 desktop Macs - with a particular focus on Power Macs. The list FAQ is at http://lowendmac.com/lists/g-list.shtml and our netiquette guide is at http://www.lowendmac.com/lists/netiquette.shtml To post to this group, send email to g3-5-list@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/g3-5-list
Re: latest mac mini for 10.4.11
Del, Save Tiger for the fearless Sawtooth. Close your eyes and jump all the way to Snow Leopard. You'll never regret it. Tiger is still a superb OS, but Snow Leopard is not only superior, it's breathtakingly beautiful. As an added advantage, if you know your way around in Tiger, you won't feel disoriented in SL --just amazed. Best of luck, Felix On Aug 22, 9:21 am, MnDel dsmn...@gmail.com wrote: I am thinking to move on from my fearless old sawtooth to a mini, but I'm not ready for the jump to 10.5. From what I read on this Apple page the latest models that are fully compatible with 10.4.11 are the mid 2007 modelshttp://support.apple.com/kb/HT1159 (versions no later than MB139xx/A) It says Do not use a Mac OS X version earlier than the one included with the computer. How true is this? How true is it that my old cd set of 10.4 may not be compatible with a much later mini either? thanks! Del -- You received this message because you are a member of G-Group, a group for those using G3, G4, and G5 desktop Macs - with a particular focus on Power Macs. The list FAQ is at http://lowendmac.com/lists/g-list.shtml and our netiquette guide is at http://www.lowendmac.com/lists/netiquette.shtml To post to this group, send email to g3-5-list@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/g3-5-list
PCI graphics card for Yikes G$
Hello to the group! I currently am running a 400mhz Yikes G4 with a 1GB ram with the stock ATI video card. I'm amazed that this computer is still viable for everyday casual use, 10 years after we first purchased it. But I don't like how it handles you tube and other streaming videos, the video is very choppy while the sound is fine. The computer is hooked up to a 6Mps DSL via ethernet. Will upgrading my video card to a Radeon 7000 or 9200 take care of this problem? BTW, I'm not interested in 3D gaming just smooth streaming video. Thanks. -- You received this message because you are a member of G-Group, a group for those using G3, G4, and G5 desktop Macs - with a particular focus on Power Macs. The list FAQ is at http://lowendmac.com/lists/g-list.shtml and our netiquette guide is at http://www.lowendmac.com/lists/netiquette.shtml To post to this group, send email to g3-5-list@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/g3-5-list
Re: latest mac mini for 10.4.11
On retail disc? As far as I knew no retail 10.4 was intel/universal. There were, of course, 10.4 Intel discs included with Intel Macs, if that's what you're referencing. Sent from my iPhone On Aug 22, 2010, at 11:55 AM, Peter Haas peterh...@cruzio.com wrote: On Aug 22, 2010, at 8:07 AM, Chance Reecher wrote: Your CD set is not compatible with any intel Mac. It only has PPC code on it and won't even boot let alone install. The only 10.4 disc with Intel code (I think) is a later release of 10.4 Server. 10.4.8 was made as Intel. Possibly also as Universal. -- You received this message because you are a member of G-Group, a group for those using G3, G4, and G5 desktop Macs - with a particular focus on Power Macs. The list FAQ is at http://lowendmac.com/lists/g-list.shtml and our netiquette guide is at http://www.lowendmac.com/lists/netiquette.shtml To post to this group, send email to g3-5-list@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/g3-5-list
Re: PCI graphics card for Yikes G$
On Aug 22, 2010, at 12:41 PM, Yikes owner wrote: Hello to the group! I currently am running a 400mhz Yikes G4 with a 1GB ram with the stock ATI video card. I'm amazed that this computer is still viable for everyday casual use, 10 years after we first purchased it. But I don't like how it handles you tube and other streaming videos, the video is very choppy while the sound is fine. The computer is hooked up to a 6Mps DSL via ethernet. Will upgrading my video card to a Radeon 7000 or 9200 take care of this problem? BTW, I'm not interested in 3D gaming just smooth streaming video. Choppy video on slower computers is due to the modern requirements for YouTube. They use a newer version of Flash which is more compressed with higher quality than older versions used to be. The downside to this is that you need a faster computer to play it back. I've found that for YouTube to play back fairly at all, you need at least an 800 MHz G4 AND a Core-Image capable graphics card. The newer iterations of Flash use the graphics card for decompression, and anything less than Core-Image compatible will cause the CPU to have to do all the word. The result: a glorified slideshow... The bad news is that with the Yikes, you're VERY limited with what you can do. CPU upgrades fall short on speed and processing power and due to the lack of an AGP slot on the motherboard, you can never have Core-Image or even Quartz-Extreme graphics. Unfortunately there's not much you can do except upgrade to a newer machine. -- You received this message because you are a member of G-Group, a group for those using G3, G4, and G5 desktop Macs - with a particular focus on Power Macs. The list FAQ is at http://lowendmac.com/lists/g-list.shtml and our netiquette guide is at http://www.lowendmac.com/lists/netiquette.shtml To post to this group, send email to g3-5-list@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/g3-5-list
Re: PCI graphics card for Yikes G$
At 10:41 AM -0700 8/22/2010, Yikes owner wrote: 400mhz Yikes G4 with a 1GB ram with the stock ATI video card. don't like how it handles you tube and other streaming videos , the video is very choppy while the sound is fine. Try adding fmt=5 to the YouTube url. That tells YouTube to hit you with a lower resolution version of the video. It often makes things playable on older machines. The computer is hooked up to a 6Mps DSL via ethernet. Choppy video could also be caused by connectivity issues. Run a few speed tests to make sure your xDSL circuit is performing well. eg: http://www.speakeasy.net/speedtest Will upgrading my video card to a Radeon 7000 or 9200 take care of this problem? BTW, I'm not interested in 3D gaming just smooth streaming video. Yes, in part, but not necessarily for Flash content. Flash is very CPU-bound and only uses the GPU of the latest Macs. See Eric's reply. - Dan. -- - Psychoceramic Emeritus; South Jersey, USA, Earth. -- You received this message because you are a member of G-Group, a group for those using G3, G4, and G5 desktop Macs - with a particular focus on Power Macs. The list FAQ is at http://lowendmac.com/lists/g-list.shtml and our netiquette guide is at http://www.lowendmac.com/lists/netiquette.shtml To post to this group, send email to g3-5-list@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/g3-5-list
Re: eSATA transfer speed
On Aug 21, 6:33 pm, Eric Herbert wrote: You can only go as fast as the drive can read or write, whichever drive is slower. 3Gb/s is the maximum transfer rate the interface is capable of. Translates out to roughly 300MB/s. The fastest hard drives on the market are only capable of reading at around 80MB/s and writing at around 65MB/s sustained transfer. not quite. the difference between HD speed and interface speed has been discussed on these lists many times. as eric correctly points out, the SATA-II interface is capable of handling 3 GB/s. but, new HDs themselves currently have sustained read/write speeds of around 120 MB/s or above. i have tested several using HDST that were in the 120 MB/s range (seagate and maxtor). i have not purchased the latest or most expensive HDs, so i assume that there are probably others out there that may be a bit faster. i have also tested PATA drives that were in the 100 MB/s range (seagate). this number has increased steadily over the past 20 years from less than 5 MB/s to the current level, and presumably will continue to increase. the best SSDs currently advertise read/write speeds of 275/250 MB/s. however, SSDs have a more limited number of read/write cycles before they fail compared to a traditional spinning platter HD, so i would NOT recommend getting an SSD to use as the boot drive. it will wear out in a few years of normal use. in any case, for the SATA-II interface to actually get to 3 GB/s would require two dozen or more of the latest HDs in a RAID, so in practice, it is unachievable. in reality, a new PATA drive is likely just as fast as a SATA-II drive, if it's the only HD on the bus. On Aug 21, 9:50 pm, Chance Reecher wrote: Perhaps its a PCI thing? and NO, it is not a PCI thing. if you bother to actually think about it, it should be obvious to anyone who's mastered sixth-grade arithmetic. multiply the bus speed (MHz = million cycles/s) times the bus width (bits/cycle) and divide by 8 (bits/byte) and you will find that the PCI bus in an old Mac 9600 with a bus speed of 50 MHz is still way faster than the latest HDs. (50,000,000 cycles/s) x (32 bits/cycle) x (1 byte/8 bits) = 200,000,000 bytes/s = 200 MB/s. in practice it will be a bit less, but still faster than any one single HD. -- You received this message because you are a member of G-Group, a group for those using G3, G4, and G5 desktop Macs - with a particular focus on Power Macs. The list FAQ is at http://lowendmac.com/lists/g-list.shtml and our netiquette guide is at http://www.lowendmac.com/lists/netiquette.shtml To post to this group, send email to g3-5-list@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/g3-5-list
Re: eSATA transfer speed
On Aug 22, 2010, at 1:16 PM, ah...clem wrote: the difference between HD speed and interface speed has been discussed on these lists many times. as eric correctly points out, the SATA-II interface is capable of handling 3 GB/s. but, new HDs themselves currently have sustained read/write speeds of around 120 MB/s or above. i have tested several using HDST that were in the 120 MB/s range (seagate and maxtor). i have not purchased the latest or most expensive HDs, so i assume that there are probably others out there that may be a bit faster. i have also tested PATA drives that were in the 100 MB/s range (seagate). this number has increased steadily over the past 20 years from less than 5 MB/s to the current level, and presumably will continue to increase. the best SSDs currently advertise read/write speeds of 275/250 MB/s. however, SSDs have a more limited number of read/write cycles before they fail compared to a traditional spinning platter HD, so i would NOT recommend getting an SSD to use as the boot drive. it will wear out in a few years of normal use. in any case, for the SATA-II interface to actually get to 3 GB/s would require two dozen or more of the latest HDs in a RAID, so in practice, it is unachievable. in reality, a new PATA drive is likely just as fast as a SATA-II drive, if it's the only HD on the bus. Drive speeds are somewhat misleading. Often when you get a result from a benchmark, it's the result of the host talking to the controller about a relatively small file towards the edge of the disk where the data density is greatest and the speed is the highest. I deal with the latest and greatest disks every day building machines for people in high-performance situations, and so far the fastest disk I've tested is the newest generation of Seagate. The highest sustained data rate I saw in real-world situations was about 95MB/s. SSD's will likely be faster, but for mechanical drives, the speed is still increasing. Just 3-4 years ago, 60MB/s was considered blistering fast for a sustained data rate. IDE/PATA drives are doing good to punch past about 60MB/s due to the overhead in their interface. SATA by it's nature has a lot less wasted time due to the fact that it's data is serial instead of parallel. On a parallel bus, the controller uses up a lot of time making sure that all data is sent and received at the same time. Serial doesn't careit just sends everything out in order. This alone makes the SATA faster and less latent than the older PATA/IDE disks and controllers. While the drive is internally identical to the SATAII drives, it's the interface that slows them down. PATA disks are starting to be phased out by a lot of manufacturers, and I personally say GOOD RIDDANCE! SATA makes so many improvements in so many ways. and NO, it is not a PCI thing. if you bother to actually think about it, it should be obvious to anyone who's mastered sixth-grade arithmetic. multiply the bus speed (MHz = million cycles/s) times the bus width (bits/cycle) and divide by 8 (bits/byte) and you will find that the PCI bus in an old Mac 9600 with a bus speed of 50 MHz is still way faster than the latest HDs. (50,000,000 cycles/s) x (32 bits/cycle) x (1 byte/8 bits) = 200,000,000 bytes/s = 200 MB/s. in practice it will be a bit less, but still faster than any one single HD. You're leaving out an important note about the PCI bus. The speed of the PCI bus is the TOTAL capacity of the bus itself. Unlike PCI-Express, each slot does not have it's own data rate. It shares the total data allowance of the PCI bus itself. On the 32 bit PCI Macs the PCI bus speed is 33 Mhz with a width of 32 bits. It gives a maximum capacity of the bus as 133MB/s (hence why ATA/133 caps out there). On the 64 bit Macs, such as the G4's and G5's with PCI slots, the bus is still 33 Mhz, but it's 64 bits wide for a maximum throughput of 266MB/s. However the 32 bit front half of the slot is still limited to only 133 MB/s. Keep in mind that everything on a PCI bus has to share interrupts, wait states, and data throughput. So although you can have an ATA/133 drive, your performance is doing good if you even achieve half of that. It's because of all this sharing and latency that the PCIe architecture came about. It's better in more ways that I care to count! If you only have a single drive on a PCI bus, you will see about 60-65MB/s as your peak speed achievable on any single disk. If you have 2 disks and have them copy data from one to the other on the same PCI bus, you can half that due to the limitations of the bus itself. -- You received this message because you are a member of G-Group, a group for those using G3, G4, and G5 desktop Macs - with a particular focus on Power Macs. The list FAQ is at http://lowendmac.com/lists/g-list.shtml and our netiquette guide is at http://www.lowendmac.com/lists/netiquette.shtml To post to this
Re: USB Question
On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 9:57 AM, Dan dantear...@gmail.com wrote: At 7:05 AM -0500 8/22/2010, Stephen Conrad wrote: I plugged a Targus 4-Port hub into another of my UB Hubs (it i powered) and now that Hub appears to have died. Now That hub i plugged into another Hub and has always worked fine. Perhaps the Targus has a short? - Maybe, the light came on on the Targus So, I then plugged the Targus into one of the UB port on my G4 Quickilver (OS X 10.4.11) and now that one seems to not be working. You took a hub with a problem and plugged it into your Mac? Wow. Um Not a good plan. - I didn't know it had any issues. The 4 PORT USB 2.0 HUB I first plugged it into has recently had the second of its ports stop working. I thought this may be the issue (a port having died) Will a reboot of this Mac fix this issue? If the OS shut down the port because it sensed some problem, then yes - a reboot should restore it, IF it managed to shut it down before the port fried. If the OS did that then there will be a message in the system log. - Where would I find this info? -- Steve Conrad Henrietta, MO 64036 The time has come for mankind to grow up and leave its cradle behind; to go forth and claim our place in outer space. - Capt. Henry Gloval (\__/) (='.'=) ()_() Help Bunny Take Over The World! -- You received this message because you are a member of G-Group, a group for those using G3, G4, and G5 desktop Macs - with a particular focus on Power Macs. The list FAQ is at http://lowendmac.com/lists/g-list.shtml and our netiquette guide is at http://www.lowendmac.com/lists/netiquette.shtml To post to this group, send email to g3-5-list@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/g3-5-list
Re: PCI graphics card for Yikes G$
On Aug 22, 2010, at 12:55 PM, Eric Herbert wrote: due to the lack of an AGP slot on the motherboard, you can never have Core-Image or even Quartz-Extreme graphics. You can enable Quartz Extreme using PCI Extreme 3.1, and some PCI nVidia FX5200 and 6200 cards support Core Image over PCI on New World Macs such as the BW/Yikes and later, but won't work for Old World Beige and earlier. This may provide some information, dead links are available via Internet Archive Wayback Machine: http://www.xlr8yourmac.com/Graphics/Mac_PCI_FX5200/mac_PCI_FX5200.html Both Quartz Extreme Core Image work on hackintosh under Snow Leopard with an FX5200 or FX6200 PCI. Anyone using a PCI card in a Mac should be aware that normally using a PCI video card that doesn't support Quartz Extreme Core Image will disable both QE CI for the AGP or PCIe graphics card also. If you're using a PCI card in a Mac as a 2nd graphics card it's important to have one that will enable QE CI, or you will loose acceleration for both cards. -- You received this message because you are a member of G-Group, a group for those using G3, G4, and G5 desktop Macs - with a particular focus on Power Macs. The list FAQ is at http://lowendmac.com/lists/g-list.shtml and our netiquette guide is at http://www.lowendmac.com/lists/netiquette.shtml To post to this group, send email to g3-5-list@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/g3-5-list
Re: eSATA transfer speed
On Aug 22, 2010, at 8:23 AM, Dan wrote: The card in question is a 1V4 not a 1VE2+2. These are identical cards with different configurations of ports, the V4 has four internal ports, the 2+2 has two internal and two external ports. Otherwise they are identical cards. The specs were obtained from FirmTek's spec page pertaining to the 1V4. Yes, and the reply I posted from FirmTek Support explains why the SeriTek series of cards are listed as SATA I when in reality they are SATA II speed cards that lack support for SSC (spread-spectrum clocking), something that isn't used in any normal configuration. This means these SeriTek cards including the 1V4 are capable of SATA II speeds, they just lack SSC support and don't technically meet the SATA II standard. There is no speed difference between these cards and any other SATA II card. -- You received this message because you are a member of G-Group, a group for those using G3, G4, and G5 desktop Macs - with a particular focus on Power Macs. The list FAQ is at http://lowendmac.com/lists/g-list.shtml and our netiquette guide is at http://www.lowendmac.com/lists/netiquette.shtml To post to this group, send email to g3-5-list@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/g3-5-list
Re: Mini G4 10.4.11 ViewSonic monitor resolution
On Aug 21, 5:49 pm, Kris Tilford ktilfo...@cox.net wrote: On Aug 21, 2010, at 1:48 PM, Cliff Rediger wrote: If the cable is a VGA cable, and you have a DVI-to-VGA at the Mini, then you're stuck unless you buy a DVI cable, which should give a slightly crisper image on the monitor, as well as different sets of resolution/refresh rates. I have VGA cable with DVI-to-VGA at the Mini. But, I think I've stumbled on a fix. First, POI: I'm booting from an external drive Firewired to the Mini. Lately, after reconfiguring the daisy connections of my Mini and 4 external drive, when I Shutdown and then restart, the Mini drive boots (not sure why). OK, so, I shut down to check the DVI ports to make sure I need a male to male DVI cable. I disconnect the VGA/DVI adapter at the Mini and replug. Reboot and the Mini drive boots, AND there's FULL SCREEN. In fact I have to reduce the horizontal size to fit. A check of the MenuBar Display menu and the selected resolution is 1400x1050 There were three options showing 1400x1050 , 1600x1200 and 1920x1080. The image is kind of stretched and the fonts a bit too large. So, I select 1920x1080. Voila. full screen (no front or back doors). some adjustment required. Then I go to System Preferences/Displays and select 1920x1980 and we're back to doors I repeat the above, get full screen and reboot to my external drive. Now I have three options in the MenuBar Display menu: 1600x1200, 1920x1080 and another 1920x1080. One 1920x1080. options gives be partial screen, the other full screen. Go figure. I wonder Kris, if this has to do with the VGA selection. Anyway, the font issue isn't resolved, but I can live with it and I have full screen. Cliff -- You received this message because you are a member of G-Group, a group for those using G3, G4, and G5 desktop Macs - with a particular focus on Power Macs. The list FAQ is at http://lowendmac.com/lists/g-list.shtml and our netiquette guide is at http://www.lowendmac.com/lists/netiquette.shtml To post to this group, send email to g3-5-list@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/g3-5-list
Re: Mini G4 10.4.11 ViewSonic monitor resolution
On Aug 22, 2010, at 7:23 PM, Cliff Rediger wrote: On Aug 21, 5:49 pm, Kris Tilford ktilfo...@cox.net wrote: If the cable is a VGA cable, and you have a DVI-to-VGA at the Mini, then you're stuck unless you buy a DVI cable, which should give a slightly crisper image on the monitor, as well as different sets of resolution/refresh rates. I have VGA cable with DVI-to-VGA at the Mini. While I have no personal experience with any Mac mini, or ViewSonic monitor, everymac.com seems to indicate that the ATI Radeon 9200 video card in all three mini G4 models, whether with 32-MB or 64-MB VRAM, supports digital resolutions up to 1920x1200, presumably when a DVI-to-DVI cable is used. http://www.everymac.com/systems/apple/mac_mini/stats/mac_mini_g4_1.25.html You have been working with VGA output from the Mac mini, which supports analog resolutions as high as 1920x1080. I believe that your ViewSonic monitor accepts DVI input. Fabian -- You received this message because you are a member of G-Group, a group for those using G3, G4, and G5 desktop Macs - with a particular focus on Power Macs. The list FAQ is at http://lowendmac.com/lists/g-list.shtml and our netiquette guide is at http://www.lowendmac.com/lists/netiquette.shtml To post to this group, send email to g3-5-list@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/g3-5-list
Re: PCI graphics card for Yikes G$
On Aug 22, 2010, at 5:15 PM, Kris Tilford wrote: On Aug 22, 2010, at 12:55 PM, Eric Herbert wrote: due to the lack of an AGP slot on the motherboard, you can never have Core-Image or even Quartz-Extreme graphics. You can enable Quartz Extreme using PCI Extreme 3.1, and some PCI nVidia FX5200 and 6200 cards support Core Image over PCI on New World Macs such as the BW/Yikes and later, but won't work for Old World Beige and earlier. This may provide some information, dead links are available via Internet Archive Wayback Machine: http://www.xlr8yourmac.com/Graphics/Mac_PCI_FX5200/mac_PCI_FX5200.html Both Quartz Extreme Core Image work on hackintosh under Snow Leopard with an FX5200 or FX6200 PCI. Anyone using a PCI card in a Mac should be aware that normally using a PCI video card that doesn't support Quartz Extreme Core Image will disable both QE CI for the AGP or PCIe graphics card also. If you're using a PCI card in a Mac as a 2nd graphics card it's important to have one that will enable QE CI, or you will loose acceleration for both cards. Yes, you can enable QE/CI on the PCI bus, but the problem (and hence why Apple chose to not support either on the PCI bus) is that it hogs bandwidth from the rest of the PCI bus to do it causing the rest of the computer to slow down. So yes, while you CAN do it, it's just not a good idea. The only exception to that is if you're using a PCI card in an AGP system as a second card. In that case it won't impact performance on the rest of the machine too badly since it isn't working full time to draw the main working window. That said, there will still be a performance impact on the PCI bus by doing so. -- You received this message because you are a member of G-Group, a group for those using G3, G4, and G5 desktop Macs - with a particular focus on Power Macs. The list FAQ is at http://lowendmac.com/lists/g-list.shtml and our netiquette guide is at http://www.lowendmac.com/lists/netiquette.shtml To post to this group, send email to g3-5-list@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/g3-5-list
Re: Digital Audio Processor Swap
If you can't get the 733 working, you should at least overclock your CPU to 533 MHz. Mark Sokolovsky/Midnight Rider has instructions, and I posted them on the IMP blog at: http://impodcast.com Matt Rhinesmith Sent from my iPod touch -BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK- Version: 3.12 GU d- s: a C UL P L+++ E W++ N o K- w--- O++ M++ V- PS+ PE- Y PGP t+ 5+ X+ R+++ tv++ b DI+ D+ G+ e-- h-- !r y --END GEEK CODE BLOCK-- iPod touch 3rd Gen 32GB iOS 4.0 600 MHz ARM CPU 256 MB RAM Hey all, I have read through some of the older threads for info, but could not find anything quite like this so here goes: I have a G4 digital audio 466mhz system that I would like to do some upgrades to, but nothing extreme. I want to start out by speeding it up a little, so I bought a used processor out of a 733mhz Quicksilver system. A friend of mine told me it Could be made to work so, I bought it. Now, I didn't get the heatsink and fan with it. So can the old 466 cooler be modded with a fan to work? Or, will I have to keep looking for the QS 733 goods. At present there aren't any on e-bay. I can still run the Mac as it is and wait if I have to, and I have not test fitted or altered anything yet. I am putting this machine together on the cheap just to have something to mess with, but at the same time I don't want to damage anything by overheating it out of stupidity either. LOL I am going to be doing some other upgrades later, but wanted to get a faster processor first. Thanks! -- You received this message because you are a member of G-Group, a group for those using G3, G4, and G5 desktop Macs - with a particular focus on Power Macs. The list FAQ is at http://lowendmac.com/lists/g-list.shtml and our netiquette guide is at http://www.lowendmac.com/lists/netiquette.shtml To post to this group, send email to g3-5-list@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/g3-5-list
