 |
 |
OS 9 on a 6500?
|
|
|
|
|
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Metro Detroit, MI USA "Hockeytown"
Status:
Offline
|
|
That's the question. Can I successfully install system OS 9
on a 6500 which has a processor that is 225, 250, 275, or 300.
A friend I know wants to give it to a nephew to use at college.
The ram is most likely not maxxed out to its 128 Mb limit.
|
|
kirktalon
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior User
Join Date: Jan 2001
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by kirktalon:
That's the question. Can I successfully install system OS 9
on a 6500 which has a processor that is 225, 250, 275, or 300.
A friend I know wants to give it to a nephew to use at college.
The ram is most likely not maxxed out to its 128 Mb limit.
Yes it should run fine, I've had OS 9 running on a 5200 with a 75Mhz 603e processor and 16MB of RAM. The above machine/s will run it well.
cheers
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Admin Emeritus  Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Zurich, Switzerland
Status:
Offline
|
|
It'll run fine IF it has enough RAM: minimum 128MB if MS Office will be used. I wouldn't even consider running Mac OS 9 with less than 96MB of RAM. With 64 or less, the performance is unacceptable. Also, the internal modem will not work. (Installing Mac OS 9 will actually delete the modem driver if it was already there.)
That said, giving that to somebody who's going to college now... err... it's kinda old for that. Waaaay old.
tooki
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Status:
Offline
|
|
OS 8.6 will provide probably over 90% of the functionality that OS 9 will, and I think it uses a bit less RAM. Probably a better choice. Hell, even 8.1 should be good enough for most things and it'll use a lot less RAM and be faster. I'd suggest one of those rather than OS 9. 9 seemed to be a bit buggy, slow, and demanding compared to its older brothers, and it doesn't have any huge advantages.
|
"That's Mama Luigi to you, Mario!" *wheeze*
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status:
Offline
|
|
Luca is right - 8.6 was the sweet spot for the classic Mac OS. The 6500 will run OS 9 (up to 9.1.x) just fine, but it will require more RAM and drive space than 8.6, as has been stated.
|
"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Bay Area of San Jose
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by Big Mac:
Luca is right - 8.6 was the sweet spot for the classic Mac OS. The 6500 will run OS 9 (up to 9.1.x) just fine, but it will require more RAM and drive space than 8.6, as has been stated.
I have a 6500 w/ 32 mb's of ram, vram up to 64, it choked on 9, 8.6 does swell, I just can't run itunes.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status:
Offline
|
|
iTunes on OS 9 was not a great experience. It skipped during even light loads. Thank the Lord for OS X!
|
"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Jul 2003
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by Big Mac:
iTunes on OS 9 was not a great experience. It skipped during even light loads. Thank the Lord for OS X!
Amen!
(9.1 will run, but I'd also advise sticking with 8.6)
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 
|
|
|
Forum Rules
|
|
|
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Top