I have old G3 BW 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
At 10:57 AM -0700 6/23/2012, Jonas Lopez wrote:
I have old G3 BW 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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 which
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's
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
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.
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 talk
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
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 BW with SCSI marked drive that is bad. I called OWC for
replacement and
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
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 several
17 matches
Mail list logo
