I've got a 6300 Performa and want to get a CDRW...anyone have suggestions?

[exa]

Hey, do you have scsi? If so, I'd get an internal scsi type, or external if you don't have the space. If you don't have scsi, I'd go get a cheap scsi-1 card or something, or maybe a usb card for a slower usb cdrw...

you should look for an external scsi cdrw. check out clubmac's cdrw drives. i have one, and it works great. mine was US$299.

dabradda

Originally posted by wjohan:
I've got a 6300 Performa and want to get a CDRW...anyone have suggestions?

I purchased a LaCie 4x6x16 CD-RW (external scsi) for my Performa 6300 and I'm pleased with it. Recording speed is limited to 4x due to the relatively slow speed the 6300 itself, but 4x is PLENTY fast enough for backing-up data and other home/office uses. So don't spend extra for an 8x recorder unless you intend to "eventually" get a G3/G4.

Performa 6300CD running OS9.04 w/64Mb RAM
LaCie 4x6x16 CD-RW with Toast software

I have no idea what db is talking about with the 6300's relatively slow speed. There's no hardware limitation to the 6300, or any SCSI-compatible Mac (unlike USB-only Macs which are limited by the USB bottleneck). You can use any speed burner on these machines and I recommend you get the best you can afford. Remember that the machine is unusable for the duration of the burn so 20 minutes a pop (at 4X) can seem awfully long if you're doing more than one at a sitting. 8X machines are readily available.

[Chris_G]

Actually, there are some speed limitations to the 6200-6300 series (minus the 6360). Apple used a Quadra (read 32-bit) motherboard with a PowerPC (read 64-bit) processor, thus crippling the performance of the machine... this includes disk access. I believe the 6300 came with a 4x CD-Rom drive, thus you couldn't copy CD's at more than 4x (someone correct me if my logic is wrong here), and as far as disk access... unless I turn off some extensions I have a hard time burning at 2x on my 6320. I agree with db... an 8x won't do you much good now, but if you can find a good price on one, think of it as an investment in the future. Just my $0.02.

Cheers!
Chris

I've burned 6X handily on a 630 (I'd burn at 8X, but I don't have one). While it's obvious that a 4X CD-ROM is a limiting factor, there's no disk-access, or any other, limitation -- other than RAM -- to any SCSI machine burning at 8X.

uh...... I've never had a successful burn @ 6x
on my 6300, even after turning off unneeded extensions. I always get an error box stating something like "Recording has failed". There is a feature in TOAST that lets you check the speed of your machine at various burn rates. At 6x my RAM cache immediately falls to zero (unlike 4x and slower). I ASSUMED this was because my Performa "just couldn't keep up" 'cuz I don't have this problem on my beige G3/233.
I'd LIKE to be able to use my 6300 to burn at 6x, but I've had no such luck.......

BTW I have a LaCie 6x4x16, not a 4x6x16 as I earlier stated.

Don't know what to tell ya. If my 630 could keep up (with a 68040LC processor and relatively slow hard drive) there's no reason a 6300 can't. RAM cache is important the higher the speed, and you need to set it to at least 32MB. Also try burning with extensions off (not necessary under most conditions, but is a good last-ditch measure).

[Chris_G]

The only thing I can think of is that the 68040 processor is a native 32-bit processor on a native 32-bit motherboard, while the 6300 is a 64-bit processor on a 32-bit motherboard. This forces some cycling of events, including hard drive access (Apple was able to cut costs by using the 32-bit motherboard design). This is why in the 5200/6200/6300 series (minus the 6360), if you do anything with graphics and try to type or something like that, the whole machine gets bogged down... all the incoming traffic has to go through the CPU.

Cheers!
Chris

I'll try to not make this a tempest in a teapot. That argument might sway me if Toast or the burning itself was a processor-intensive task, but it really comes down to two things RAM and a reasonable flow of data at .9MBps (for 6X). That's not a particularly high rate. The processor bottleneck certainly wouldn't account for it.