Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

BrettOZ · Feb 28, 2005, 02:39 AM

Hi

I was wondering if anyone has attempted to run OSX 10.2 SERVER ?

and if so, how much RAM and what Mac mini model was used ? Would love to hear any feedback.

Thanks

Detrius · Feb 28, 2005, 07:12 PM

Originally posted by BrettOZ:
Hi

I was wondering if anyone has attempted to run OSX 10.2 SERVER ?

and if so, how much RAM and what Mac mini model was used ? Would love to hear any feedback.

Thanks

10.2 anything is not possible on the Mac mini. You have to at least run the OS that came with the machine.

However, 10.3 server will be fine. Disc 2 will upgrade a client install to a server install.

BrettOZ · Feb 28, 2005, 08:53 PM

No workarounds at all?

What about installing OSX Server 10.2 on an external firewire drive and then moving that image to the Mac mini drive ? Just a thought...

Detrius · Feb 28, 2005, 09:07 PM

Originally posted by BrettOZ:
No workarounds at all?

What about installing OSX Server 10.2 on an external firewire drive and then moving that image to the Mac mini drive ? Just a thought...

This would require taking the open source core of 10.3 and making modifications such that the drivers for the Mac mini are compatible with the 10.2 kernel. Then, you would have to recompile the drivers. It would be possible, since Darwin is open source, but you definitely don't want to do this. It would be better worth your time to just BUY 10.3 server.

We're talking Mac OS here--not Windows or Linux. The Mac isn't backwards compatible. PCs shouldn't be either, but for some reason they are. In theory, you can run Windows 3.1 on the latest greatest Pentium 4. That's not how it works on this side.

BrettOZ · Feb 28, 2005, 09:17 PM

OK - thanks for the info.

Was trying to avoid having to buy the latest version of Server (I have 10.2) as the cost of the upgrade for it, is the same as the cost of the mini

typoon · Feb 28, 2005, 10:21 PM

Originally posted by Detrius:
10.2 anything is not possible on the Mac mini. You have to at least run the OS that came with the machine.

However, 10.3 server will be fine. Disc 2 will upgrade a client install to a server install.

Or you can read my post on how I installed OS X server on my Mini via Target mode.

discotronic · Feb 28, 2005, 11:56 PM

Originally posted by Detrius:
The Mac isn't backwards compatible. PCs shouldn't be either, but for some reason they are. In theory, you can run Windows 3.1 on the latest greatest Pentium 4. That's not how it works on this side.

Just curious....

Why do you think that PCs shouldn't be backwards compatible?

Detrius · Mar 9, 2005, 10:40 PM

Originally posted by typoon:
Or you can read my post on how I installed OS X server on my Mini via Target mode.

Not to be rude, but why on earth would you tie up two machines when you only need one? The easy way is to stick Disc 2 in the machine and double click the package. Then run software update. Now you are done. That's so much simpler.

Detrius · 10:54 AM

Originally posted by discotronic:
Just curious....

Why do you think that PCs shouldn't be backwards compatible?

Why do you think that you should be able to run windows 3.1 on a 3GHz P4? People need to be willing to ditch inferior technologies. The 8086 is an inferior technology to the P4. No one in their right minds needs that built into the processor. It should have been ditched a LONG time ago.

10.2 server is highly inferior to 10.3 server. You may not have noticed much change between 10.2 and 10.3 client, but there was an incredibly large amount of development that went into server. No one should be running 10.2 server--it blows chunks. You can't even netboot a diskless machine.

discotronic · Mar 10, 2005, 12:13 AM

Originally posted by Detrius:
Why do you think that you should be able to run windows 3.1 on a 3GHz P4? People need to be willing to ditch inferior technologies. The 8086 is an inferior technology to the P4. No one in their right minds needs that built into the processor. It should have been ditched a LONG time ago.

10.2 server is highly inferior to 10.3 server. You may not have noticed much change between 10.3 and 10.3 client, but there was an incredibly large amount of development that went into server. No one should be running 10.2 server--it blows chunks. You can't even netboot a diskless machine.

All I did was ask a question. I never said that I should be able to run 3.1 on a P4

I do however believe that being able to run Win 2000 on new hardware is essential in the Windows world. Many companies rely on the fact that this can be done. Many companies are still running 2000 and have no reason or it isn't cost efficient to upgrade to XP. If it where my company, I would be pissed to find out that I have to purchase old equipment because new equipment would not run the OS that I have spent possibly millions for.

I'm sure that people on the Mac end of things have run into similar problems. Nowhere near the problems that people run into on the PC side. If a company spends untold amounts on an unlimited client license for Win 2000 why would they then want to turn around and spend that same amount or more on XP?

typoon · Mar 10, 2005, 07:54 AM

Originally posted by Detrius:
Not to be rude, but why on earth would you tie up two machines when you only need one? The easy way is to stick Disc 2 in the machine and double click the package. Then run software update. Now you are done. That's so much simpler.

True you can do it that way too.

Detrius · Mar 11, 2005, 12:26 AM

Originally posted by discotronic:
...If a company spends untold amounts on an unlimited client license for Win 2000 why would they then want to turn around and spend that same amount or more on XP?

So why spend all that money for an unlimited client license to begin with?

Mac programs don't have the same forwards compatibility issues that PCs do. If a program runs on 10.2, it'll run on 10.3 (except those that are hacks to begin with). Since the OS is upgraded more often on the Mac side, the changes are more gradual. You get a few features here and there, but no individual upgrade to OS X has been dramatic. If you skip a few versions, it's dramatic, but otherwise it's small tweaks here and there.

Anyway... I specifically said Windows 3.1 because I know people are still running Win 2000. But the point is that they CAN run Windows 3.1 on their new hardware. That's stuff that is built into the machine that is wasting valuable transistors. This stuff needs to be allowed to Rest In Peace. Let it die already!

The PC side could set up a standard platform that new logic boards must conform to. The new OS will support both the new standard and the old smorgasbord. However, the following OS three years later requires the standard, but it also works on new standard 2.0. New OS 3.0 works on all three versions of the standard. However, new OS 4.0 drops support for new standard 1.0. As a result, new standard 1.0 is no longer a part of new standard 4.0. It's possible to drop support for archaic systems without losing the compatibility you want.

mbryda · Mar 11, 2005, 10:06 AM

The PC world is getting better and better in this regards. For example: XP nukes support for a lot of parallel port stuff (Scanners, etc) in favor of USB. XP also doesn't support Non-PnP hardware either, IIRC.

But, it would porbably be extremely hard to run Win 3.1 on a new machine. Why? Drivers. You may be able to get it to run, but in a crummy VGA compatibility mode that would be useless from a performance perspecive.

Not to mention it may not even run. When AMD came out with the 400Mhz K62, there were issues with Win95 because of a timing loop. The AMD was faster than anything out there at the time and that timing loop was ver problematic. Needless to say, MS had to patch it and it also became an issue once the P2's/P3's caught up.

I'd imagine there may be little quirks like that hiding in Win 3.11

But either way, it's pointless to install an old OS into a new machine!

JHromadka · Mar 12, 2005, 12:18 AM

Originally posted by Detrius:
10.2 anything is not possible on the Mac mini. You have to at least run the OS that came with the machine.

However, 10.3 server will be fine. Disc 2 will upgrade a client install to a server install.

I plan on eventually doing this with a mini. So for Panther Server, I just take a mini with 10.3 installed and run Disk 2 of 10.3 Server to upgrade the mini? Has anyone gotten beta builds of Tiger Server to run on the mini?

BrettOZ · Mar 14, 2005, 07:56 PM

Originally posted by Detrius:
10.2 server is highly inferior to 10.3 server. You may not have noticed much change between 10.3 and 10.3 client, but there was an incredibly large amount of development that went into server. No one should be running 10.2 server--it blows chunks. You can't even netboot a diskless machine.

I understand there must be some major changes under the hood for 10.3 Server - but for just a general Web/Quicktime/File Server - I take it 10.2 Server would fine? Security updates are still being released aren't they ??