> If the budget allows, the ACARD adapter might be a better choice. Once
> I clocked a 78mb SCSI drive vs an 80gb ide on an ACARD adapter to see
> how much faster the SCSI drive was. It wasn't, the 80gb on the adapter
> beat the SCSI drive by a good margin.
The ACARD product is available in sever
If the budget allows, the ACARD adapter might be a better choice. Once
I clocked a 78mb SCSI drive vs an 80gb ide on an ACARD adapter to see
how much faster the SCSI drive was. It wasn't, the 80gb on the adapter
beat the SCSI drive by a good margin.
--
You received this message because you are a
Begin forwarded message:
From: peterh...@cruzio.com
Subject: Re: Is SCSI DRIVE SAME AS UATA DRIVE?
Date: 23 June 2012 19:38:39 GMT+01:00
To: g3-5-list@googlegroups.com
Reply-To: g3-5-list@googlegroups.com
>> I have old G3 B&W with SCSI marked drive that is bad. I called OWC for
>> replacement
On Jun 23, 2012, at 1:56 PM, Cameron Kaiser wrote:
On Jun 23, 2012, at 1:55 PM, Bruce Johnson wrote:
It's still a pretty tough order. VirtualPC has been out of
production
since the Tiger era (it is technically not fully compatible with
Leopard).
It also does not work with G5's.
VPC 7 d
Il giorno 23-06-2012 21:02, Anand ha scritto:
> I know that it is generally said that a G anything cannot run Snow Leopard.
> [...]
> I expect many of you are pretty tired of hearing it can't
> be done. I'm tired of Apple leaving us behind. Time we did something about
> it. So, who do we need to
Il giorno 23-06-2012 21:14, Dan ha scritto:
> Apple kept foisting off older slower
> interfaces on us. SCSI-1 when the world was doing SCSI-2 and -3.
> ATA/100. USB 1. etc *sigh*
Looks like Apple was trying to save some bucks (pennies?), while still make
us paying premium for their hardware.
Eight years ago this conversation might have been thought impossible. Many
Macheads would have been flabbergasted at the thought of an Intel Mac or an
OS that would leave them so far behind.
5 years ago there was outrage over the hackintosh movement and letting Mac
OS run on PC hardware/
Now a lo
> > It's still a pretty tough order. VirtualPC has been out of production
> > since the Tiger era (it is technically not fully compatible with Leopard).
>
> It also does not work with G5's.
VPC 7 does (I have it on this quad). It runs XP acceptably, but is better in
Win2K and Win98. I think that'
On Jun 23, 2012, at 12:37 PM, John Ruschmeyer wrote:
> It's still a pretty tough order. VirtualPC has been out of production since
> the Tiger era (it is technically not fully compatible with Leopard).
It also does not work with G5's.
> Moreover, it presents a fairly simple hardware model whic
> Time to realize that you have to move on, that the PPC is a dead end.
Well, I don't know about the move on part, but it is increasingly harder to
port things back to 10.4, and 10.5 will shortly have the same problem. Still,
I still think there is ample life for basic tasks in PPCs as long as peo
On Jun 23, 2012, at 12:02 PM, Anand wrote:
> I know that it is generally said that a G anything cannot run Snow Leopard.
> However, I run Virtual PC on my iBook G4 so I know that a program can be
> created to emulate an Intel Mac,
That does not follow. Virtual PC emulates a very minimal level
It's still a pretty tough order. VirtualPC has been out of production since
the Tiger era (it is technically not fully compatible with Leopard).
Moreover, it presents a fairly simple hardware model which is mainly
designed to satisfy Microsoft OSs. As a result, it is highly likely that it
does not
I'd say it is better than no solution at all, which is where we are at the
moment. I am not concerned about speed as long as it works. We've all
gotten use to things being almost instant. Too bad.
On Saturday, June 23, 2012 12:14:49 PM UTC-7, Cameron Kaiser wrote:
>
> > I know that it is genera
> I know that it is generally said that a G anything cannot run Snow Leopard.
> However, I run Virtual PC on my iBook G4 so I know that a program can be
> created to emulate an Intel Mac, and it would probably work best if the PPC
> Mac had at least two processors. So, what work has been done on
At 11:38 AM -0700 6/23/2012, peterh...@cruzio.com wrote:
The particular Adaptec controller used UW-SCSI drives, which have a
68-pin interface for a 16-bit-wide data path. Traditional SCSI has a
50-pin interface for an 8-bit-wide data path.
That always bugged me. That SCSI board should have be
I know that it is generally said that a G anything cannot run Snow Leopard.
However, I run Virtual PC on my iBook G4 so I know that a program can be
created to emulate an Intel Mac, and it would probably work best if the PPC
Mac had at least two processors. So, what work has been done on this an
>> I have old G3 B&W with SCSI marked drive that is bad. I called OWC for
>> replacement and was told SCSI IS THE SAME AS ULTRA ATA DRIVE. I think
>> this
>> is wrong.
>
> Yup. They are completely different.
>
> However, the G3 *should* use an ATA drive normally, unless you have a SCSI
> card inst
At 10:57 AM -0700 6/23/2012, Jonas Lopez wrote:
I have old G3 B&W with SCSI marked drive that is bad. I called OWC
for replacement and was told SCSI IS THE SAME AS ULTRA ATA DRIVE. I
think this is wrong.
SCSI and ATA/IDE are two different bus technologies. They are NOT compatible.
The only t
> I have old G3 B&W with SCSI marked drive that is bad. I called OWC for
> replacement and was told SCSI IS THE SAME AS ULTRA ATA DRIVE. I think this
> is wrong.
Yup. They are completely different.
However, the G3 *should* use an ATA drive normally, unless you have a SCSI
card installed. Do you?
I have old G3 B&W with SCSI marked drive that is bad. I called OWC for
replacement and was told SCSI IS THE SAME AS ULTRA ATA DRIVE. I think this is
wrong.
any info help on this?
"I'm a designated FREE SPIRIT HITCHHIKING on the Information Super Highway"
=
20 matches
Mail list logo