|
|
|
|
| Welcome, Guest | Home | Search | Login | Register | |
| Author | Mac OS 8.0/8.1 (Read 48834 times) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
68040
512 MB  Posts: 950 68k - thy kingdom come, thy will be done ! 
|
Reply #15 on: October 17, 2021, 01:45
If you ever need help fighting the good Platinum fight, you may call on me to join your forces :-) I am an absolute fanboy of MacOS 8.1 and its sleek design. Heck, if they'd let me get away with it, I'd mandate that all the standard design for all our desktop needs (just kidding). I got tons of MacOS apps installed on my system and now that I managed to setup an Apple Talk server on my Linux box I plan to add tons and tons more to it. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
68040
|
512 MB Posts: 950 68k - thy kingdom come, thy will be done !
Reply #16 on: November 03, 2021, 21:43
|
Someone - whose name I won't mention here (Bolkonskij) - wrote: "Why use 8.1 if you can have a snappier 7.6.1?" Well for one thing, because I think having a professional looking GUI, a grown-up Extension, Font and Network management - together with 1920x1050 screen rez in high-def color - beats computing inside a fish bowl by many Leisure Suit Larries. I am an unapologetic and die hard Platinum MacOS 8.1 fan - and I'll let no one bad mouth the glory of 68k. If we could have given the Amiga the GUI of the Mac, way back when, then Bill Gates would have only been remembered as the most die hard male virgin of his school year. The best hardware is useless w/o good software and Platinum 8.1 is the pinnacle of 68k operating system development.
Last Edit: November 03, 2021, 21:44 by 68040
|
Bolkonskij
|
Administrator 1024 MB  Posts: 2023
Reply #17 on: November 04, 2021, 11:20
|
Well, I give it to you - it's an individual aestethics question whether you prefer the Platinum look or the good ol' plain Apple look. I'm not hiding I'm a fan of the latter, but tastes differ. :-) There's nothing inherently wrong with 8.1, it's just 7.6 + additional weight added. I personally don't want that weight. And I don't know why anyone else would want it. So did Dan Palka, founder of System 7 Today, which is why he created this website in the first place :-) But what is important - IF I want that weight on my 7.6 (or parts of it), I can always add them myself. To the extend that I need it. I want Platinum? Check! I want to run System 7 in Full HD? Check. I think if you'd stop emulating 8.1 and try to run it on a real 68k Mac you'd soon realize why 68k and 8.1 isn't such a great combo. It's considerably more slow than 7.6, to the point where it's barely usable even on a 68040 Mac. Of course, if you run it emulated on a modern computer that problem probably isn't there. But hence my comment about 7.6 being the snappier choice versus 8.1 - at least on real hardware :-)
|
68040
|
512 MB Posts: 950 68k - thy kingdom come, thy will be done !
Reply #18 on: November 04, 2021, 14:10
|
If I would ever get the space and time in life to return to the glory of true 68k HW, I'd get myself a Quadra Tower with a 68040 CPU (maybe even a 68060 daughterbaord upgrade?). I'd overclock the b!tch, add 512MB of RAM, a 80386 sideboard and a 4TB SSD HD disk to it. Then I'll run a bunch of benchmarks on it, post the screenshots on System7Today, step back and wait for Mr. Bolkonskij's most humble apology. :-) :-) Plus his question "where can I get myself one of those?" :-)
Last Edit: November 04, 2021, 15:58 by 68040
|
Bolkonskij
|
Administrator 1024 MB Posts: 2023
Reply #19 on: November 04, 2021, 18:47
|
Look, the benchmark might point into one way or the other. I don't know. I haven't done it. But founder of System 7 Today, Dan Palka, has done these benchmark tests before. It's an interesting read. The point is, as you emphasized, you *need* a very fast system like your suggested 68040 Quadra with 512 MB RAM, a SSD + a 68060 daughterboard (were there even such for the Mac?). And that proves the point - 8.1 carries more baggage and has bigger requirements for a gain that most users won't need with their mid 90s Macs. It's a great OS after all, but if you're running a real 68k Mac, you're probably much better of installing either 7.5.x or even 7.1 with some manual tweaks. Things may turn out to be different on the emulation front. But frankly, I know too few about that to make any statement at all. I'll leave that to others.
|
cballero
|
1024 MB Posts: 1176 System 7, today and forever
Reply #20 on: March 13, 2023, 23:41
|
@Bolkonskij and 68040: Apparently, a prototype (68060-chipped Mac) did!  (modern browser needed)https://saccade.com/blog/2022/05/mac-software-lives-again/
|
68040
|
512 MB Posts: 950 68k - thy kingdom come, thy will be done !
Reply #21 on: March 14, 2023, 01:53
|
Thx cballero for this one: Quote Actually, I did briefly witness the hyper-fast Mac almost 30 years ago when I worked at Apple. A friend showed me a lab prototype of a Mac based on Motorola’s 68060 CPU, stuffed into the case of an old Mac IIfx. Such a machine was never released by Apple (they pivoted to using the PowerPC instead). But that 68060 prototype, running an older copy of System 7, did boot up in about a second. Ha, read this all yah 8.1 deniers and weep! Imagine how things could have turned out, if only they had listened to the gospel of 68060! PS: Check out the juicy hypercard stacks in the IA pages.
Last Edit: March 14, 2023, 01:56 by 68040
|
|
Pages: 1 [2]
|
| |||||||
|
© 2021 System7Today.com. |
