 |
 |
Performa 6320 Max HD
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Stoneham, MA, USA
Status:
Offline
|
|
Interesting, there is no forum for older macs. I'll ironically post this thread in powermac then :-)
Anyway I'm wondering if anyone knows what the largest hard drive you can put in one of these machines is. It comes with a 1.2GB IDE. I know you can put a 10GB in there. Is there an upper limit? I'm hoping that it can take a full 128GB but somehow I doubt it. You CAN install linux on these machine, and though they are slow and outdated, at least with a 128 GB drive and MySQL installed, it could do SOMETHING usefull.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Jul 2006
Status:
Offline
|
|
I owned a Performa 6360. It uses an ATA-2 bus. ATA-2 has an inherant limit of 8.4 GB. Unless they chipped it otherwise, that was the ATA-2 limit. The ATA-3 standard, found in the next generation of PowerMacs after that, broke the limit.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Admin Emeritus  Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Zurich, Switzerland
Status:
Offline
|
|
Uhhh... no. The 8.4GB limit is a PC BIOS limitation, irrelevant to Macs. It is not a limit of the bus specification.
There are reports on xlr8yourmac.com of P6360's with 60GB drives installed. There are no size barriers between 60GB and 137GB, which is the maximum drive addressable with 28-bit LBA.
Effectively, the maximum drive size in any IDE Mac before the second-generation QuickSilver G4's is 120GB.
tooki
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Jul 2006
Status:
Offline
|
|
Sorry for the mistake. Please don't beat me up next time. A little grace is always nice. 
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Stoneham, MA, USA
Status:
Offline
|
|
Way to rough him up took :-P
Also that is great news, thanks!
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Junior Member
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Chicago
Status:
Offline
|
|
Believe me, old Macs are awesome, but you do NOT want to use a 6320 for anything. It is one of the worst Macs ever made, with lots of cut corners to lower the price when it was new. It wouldn't be worth a hard disk upgrade at all, especially of that size. It's beyond just a matter of them being out dated; they were really slow even when they were new.
Here are all the many many disgusting reasons why the 6320 was such a horrible design: http://lowendmac.com/tech/x200.shtml
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status:
Offline
|
|
Wow, yeah, interesting reading dpaanlka. But while I agree Apple made some pretty crappy engineering tradeoffs to derive that series (according to that article), I would not say that makes the computers worthless. People did amazing things with original generation Macs that were far lower powered than these were, and if 1008com can find a use for that system I say that's a good thing.
|
"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Junior Member
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Chicago
Status:
Offline
|
|
I'd say a Quadra 840av would be more productive than one of these things. early power macs are so cheap these days... a $5 Power Mac 8100/110 would be way better than a 6320. so why even bother?
they are good for watching TV though... i have several
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Washington DC
Status:
Offline
|
|
I went to college with a 6320 back in 1996. Not neatly as bad as others would like to make it out to be...
The best function of the unit was the integrated tv tuner! You could boot the machine from the tv remote.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 
|
|
|
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