|
|
|
|
| Welcome, Guest | Home | Search | Login | Register | |
| Author | System 7 Macs (Read 12925 times) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
ianj
16 MB  Posts: 19 
|
on: June 24, 2007, 01:08
New member here. My main System 7 Mac is a Quadra 840AV running 7.6.1 on 96 MB of RAM. I also have a few '030 pizza boxes (IIci, IIsi, LC III) that all run 7.1. My non-System 7 Macs are a Power Mac G4, MacBook Pro, and a 6500 running 8.6. I'd run 7.6 on the 6500, but I want the large drive support HFS+ offers. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
dpaanlka
|
1024 MB Posts: 1646
Reply #1 on: June 24, 2007, 01:30
|
Quote from: "ianj" I want the large drive support HFS+ offers. Mac OS 7.6.1 can support any size drive Mac OS 9 can. The only problem is small file sizes, but usually people don't consider that such a big deal until the drives start getting huge like 20 GB. It also has less of an impact with large files.
|
loverofmusic
|
8 MB Posts: 10
Reply #2 on: June 24, 2007, 01:49
|
I use a Duo 2300c with a 20GB internal drive and System 7.6.1. I don't have multiple partitions, instead I have several disk image files which I use to manage lots and lots of small files efficiently and effectively. Only the system folder and a copy of Disk Copy for mounting the images is directly on the hard drive. Every application and file are on a disk image. I also use disk images to mount images of CD-ROMs without a CD drive attched, again without a big efficiency hit. I have not noticed any significant performance penalty associated with this approach. BTW, if anyone is planning on installing a modern IDE drive into something as ancient as a Duo, I recommend obtaining the proper brackets first. Doing it without the right brackets, like I did, is a bit risky, since it requires shimming the drive to "friction fit" it into place. That was the last drive that is ever going into that Duo frame.
|
dpaanlka
|
1024 MB Posts: 1646
Reply #3 on: June 24, 2007, 02:10
|
And in my situation, I use the entire capacity of a 10 GB SCSI hard disk as a single Mac OS 7.6.1 partition, and all my files and apps are stored on it, and I don't even notice the large file sizes (we're talking about 100 KB here).
|
ianj
|
16 MB Posts: 19
Reply #4 on: June 24, 2007, 06:55
|
Quote from: "dpaanlka" Mac OS 9 can. The only problem is small file sizes, but usually people don't consider that such a big deal until the drives start getting huge like 20 GB. It also has less of an impact with large files. So I can format a 4 GB drive as HFS standard with no appreciable loss in capacity? The rule of thumb that I used to hear was that anything over 2 GB or so in HFS standard would be wasting space, but if that's not true I might drop my 6500 back to 7.6.
|
wove
|
1024 MB Posts: 1363
Reply #5 on: June 24, 2007, 08:06
|
I think you would find a 6500 to be a real delight running 7.6.1. It will be snappy and responsive compared to newer OSes. In real world usage, I do not think you would see much difference between HFS and HFS+ on a 4GB drive. Overall HFS+ uses space more efficiently, but for typical personal use with the System 7 it matters very little. If efficient space usage is desired or required you can work around any matters using disk images for collections of small files. For large files HFS is sufficient with no work-arounds required. bill
|
dpaanlka
|
1024 MB Posts: 1646
Reply #6 on: June 24, 2007, 08:15
|
Technically any drive, no matter what size, formatted in HFS Standard could potentially *waste* disk space. Even an old 250 MB drive. It's up to you to decide whether minimum file size of a large HFS Standard drive is wasteful or irrelevant to you. You can use the following table as helpful reference: (Partition Size) - (Minimum File Size) 250 MB - 4 KB 500 MB - 8 KB 1 GB - 16 KB 2 GB - 32 KB 4 GB - 65 KB 8 GB - 131 KB 10 GB - 163 KB 16 GB - 262 KB 20 GB - 327 KB Of course, this only applies to files that are the minimum file size, or lower. A 60 MB QuickTime video is going to be basically unaffected by this for example. Also, once you copy these files to really small partitions, such as a floppy, they go back down to their normal sizes. So a text file containing one sentence, that takes up 16 KB of disk space on a 1 GB drive, is going to take up a few bytes once copied to a floppy.
|
madmann
|
256 MB Posts: 284 
Reply #7 on: June 24, 2007, 19:25
|
dan this would make a good topic in the main area. It seems to keep coming up. Due to the fact I do not like my main boot drive to be filled more than 80% this is a non issue. so your data is not stored efficiently when your drive is only half full who cares. as cheap as hard drives are for these older machines stick in a second one problem solved. besides if you want to talk about wasted space here are the real culprits. duplicate files, read me docs, multi copies of apps, help files, non used extensions like for printers you don't have, old non used apps ...... I am starting to feel about the hsf issue like Dan is about appearance manager. michael
|
ianj
|
16 MB Posts: 19
Reply #8 on: June 27, 2007, 15:44
|
I just set up 7.6.1 on my 6500 the other day, and the performance has been impressive (especially after installing Speed Doubler). I've noticed a few odd file sizes, like downloading an 806K file that became 900K on my hard drive, but so far it hasn't been a problem. Using this Mac with System 7 is a much more pleasant experience, as I expected it to be.
|
|
Pages: [1]
|
| |||||||||
|
© 2021 System7Today.com. |
