Why are you upgrading to 9.2.2? I've found 9.1 to be a great OS and very trouble free. I upgraded to 9.2.2 because of a Radeon 7000 which needs some the video files in 9.2.1/22 to run at it's best. I have odds & ends of issues I never had with 9.1 and since I don't use it much I've never found a fix for. 9.1 works great as classic with OSX. So I saw think twice about upgrading.
If only there was some way to get the word out regarding the much mentioned 8gb limit of Old World Macs. This makes it clear that if you repeat something often enough it will be believed true or not ;-) The only Macs with this limit are Beige G3's using the on board ide bus and machines with VST and Sonnet/Promise IDE PCI cards added. Which means any machine with SCSI drives as OSX boot drives and Acard IDE PCI cards aren't effected. Acard also makes the SGII & Sonnet ATA 66 cards. They also don't have the 8gb issue. MAYBE IF I SHOUT PEOPLE WILL HEAR THIS AND QUIT PRINTING BAD INFO ?????YOU THINK??????
It is easier to use utilities and fix issues with OSX if it's on it's own partition rather then mixed with OS 9.x . I have OS 9.x on a 4 gb partition and OSX on a 7 gb partition and those are good sizes for me. I have videos and extra files on the rest of the drive. A really large partition for a bootable drive also means long waits to run utilities like Disk Warrior and Nortons etc. Best of luck Will S
Will,
If it's not an issue with other macs then why when I went to install Jaguar on my Seagate Baracutta 4 - 40GB 7200rpm, hanging off sonnet ATA 100 PCI adapter flashed with ltest BIOS as a primary IDE device set as master did the installer report back to me that the partition needs to be less than 8GB? Yet it installed fine on original 4Gb SCSI drive
I agree with your sentiments regarding OS 9.1 - infact you could have kept 9.1 by grabbing the OpenGL stuff using something like Tombe viewer to extract files from 9.2.x tombe and placing them into 9.1 system folder. I did this with 9600 running 9.1 and radeon 7000 and it worked fine - I then also upgraded using ATI reatil update which also worked fine for me as well....sorry strayed off list topic a bit here....
But back to topic of unsupported X. I still feel the need to have a streamlined version of OS 9 for the classic side of X - why load quicktime, internet, etc CDEVS and xtns if these tasks are being managed by X? all you are doing is using more RAM when you boot classic and potetially run the risk of crashing by running two different versions of the same peice of software over (or should that be under) each other.
The way I see it is one drive, preferably the fastest drive you have for OSX boot with a streamline version of OS9.x for classic. On a second drive (my preference would be too hang it off the original SCSI boot location as original config) a full bootable version of OS9 as it gives you a much more graceful way of recovery should it all go belly up.
Simon
-- Unsupported OS X is sponsored by <http://lowendmac.com/>
Support Low End Mac <http://lowendmac.com/lists/support.html>
Unsupported OS X list info <http://lowendmac.com/lists/unsupported.html> --> AOL users, remove "mailto:"; Send list messages to: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To unsubscribe, email: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For digest mode, email: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subscription questions: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Archive <http://www.mail-archive.com/unsupportedosx%40mail.maclaunch.com/>
Using a Mac? Free email & more at Applelinks! http://www.applelinks.com
