[Duo2400] Re: OS X may run on 2400!

On 4/8/02 Matthew Mung <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Did anybody try XPostFacto on 2400??? > > I tried 2.2b1 last night and. > It booted to the OS X HD. Gave me the openning screen. I am so happy > Then 30 sec later, it gave me panic, and hang... Just downloaded it myself. Will tr

[Duo2400] Re: OS X may run on 2400!

On 4/8/02 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Loading a 2400 with Linux or FreeBSD and adding a Macintosh emulator works >> fairly well. I missed something here...what's the advantage of running a Mac emulator on a 2400 in Linux to run Mac software instead of going PPC native (with residual 68k code r

[Duo2400] Re: OS X may run on 2400!

Did anybody try XPostFacto on 2400??? I tried 2.2b1 last night and. It booted to the OS X HD. Gave me the openning screen. I am so happy Then 30 sec later, it gave me panic, and hang... :-) nice try -- Duo/2400 List, The friendliest place on the Net! A listserv for u

[Duo2400] Re: OS X may run on 2400!

FreeBSD does not support any kind of Macs. NetBSD does. - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Duo/2400 List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, April 06, 2002 7:20 AM Subject: [Duo2400] Re: OS X may run on 2400! > Loading a 2400 with Linu

[Duo2400] Re: OS X may run on 2400!

Loading a 2400 with Linux or FreeBSD and adding a Macintosh emulator works fairly well. -- Duo/2400 List, The friendliest place on the Net! A listserv for users and fans of Mac subportables. FAQ at Be sure to visit Mac2400!

[Duo2400] Re: OS X may run on 2400!

The 2400c will not support an OS below 7.6.1. Scott -- -- Duo/2400 List, The friendliest place on the Net! A listserv for users and fans of Mac subportables. FAQ at Be sure to visit Mac2400! To un

[Duo2400] Re: OS X may run on 2400!

I sure would recommend 7.6.1 if ram is limited. Jon > Hmmm, my dad gave me this 2400, and it's got 8.6 on it, but I suspect > 7.6 might run better...certainly much less ram, as 8.6 uses a good 20 > megs or more. > > -- > Duo/2400 List, The friendliest place on the Net! > A listserv for

[Duo2400] Re: OS X may run on 2400!

Jon Adam wrote: > > I generally say 12 megs. I have 80 in my powerbook, I just like 7.6.1 > > On Thu, 4 Apr 2002, Mark Semon wrote: > > > Jon Adam wrote: > > > > > > I still run 7.6.1 on mine. > > > > > > Jon Hmmm, my dad gave me this 2400, and it's got 8.6 on it, but I suspect 7.6 might ru

[Duo2400] Re: OS X may run on 2400!

I generally say 12 megs. I have 80 in my powerbook, I just like 7.6.1 On Thu, 4 Apr 2002, Mark Semon wrote: > Jon Adam wrote: > > > > I still run 7.6.1 on mine. > > > > Jon > > > hmmm, what does 7.6 need, ram wise to boot up? > > thanks > > -- > Duo/2400 List, The friendliest plac

[Duo2400] Re: OS X may run on 2400!

Jon Adam wrote: > > I still run 7.6.1 on mine. > > Jon hmmm, what does 7.6 need, ram wise to boot up? thanks -- Duo/2400 List, The friendliest place on the Net! A listserv for users and fans of Mac subportables. FAQ at Be sure t

[Duo2400] Re: OS X may run on 2400!

I still run 7.6.1 on mine. Jon > > Well then, I guess using the hack to run OS X on a maxed out 2400 is likely > > to be excruciating, even with the fastest G3 one can manage. ;-) > > > > - Eric. > > > Man, I wouldn't even try it. I think the 2400 is plenty happy with > System 8.6 > > Mark

[Duo2400] Re: OS X may run on 2400!

"Eric L. Strobel" wrote: > > on 4/4/02 4:14 PM, Jon Adam at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > I guess technically it will run on 128, but I have been recommending at > > least 256 to everyone that emails me. > > > > I had 256 and thought it was slow still, so I upgraded to 1 gig of ram in > > my Ti

[Duo2400] Re: OS X may run on 2400!

on 4/4/02 4:14 PM, Jon Adam at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I guess technically it will run on 128, but I have been recommending at > least 256 to everyone that emails me. > > I had 256 and thought it was slow still, so I upgraded to 1 gig of ram in > my Tibook G4. It made a world of difference.

[Duo2400] Re: OS X may run on 2400!

I guess technically it will run on 128, but I have been recommending at least 256 to everyone that emails me. I had 256 and thought it was slow still, so I upgraded to 1 gig of ram in my Tibook G4. It made a world of difference. Jon > As a practical matter, though, I believe that OS X bogs d

[Duo2400] Re: OS X may run on 2400!

age=Compatibil > ity.html > >> From: "RDX" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (Duo/2400 List) >> Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2002 03:03:49 +0800 >> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (Duo/2400 List) >> Subject: [Duo2400] Re: OS X may run on 2

[Duo2400] Re: OS X may run on 2400!

t;[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (Duo/2400 List) > Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2002 03:03:49 +0800 > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (Duo/2400 List) > Subject: [Duo2400] Re: OS X may run on 2400! > > you will need at least 128mb ram and g3 to run x -- Duo/2400 List, The friendliest place on the

[Duo2400] Re: OS X may run on 2400!

on 4/4/02 2:03 PM, RDX at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > you will need at least 128mb ram and g3 to run x > - Original Message - > From: "David T. Linker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Duo/2400 List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Friday, April 05, 2002 3:03 AM > Subject: [Duo2400] OS X may run on

[Duo2400] Re: OS X may run on 2400!

you will need at least 128mb ram and g3 to run x - Original Message - From: "David T. Linker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Duo/2400 List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, April 05, 2002 3:03 AM Subject: [Duo2400] OS X may run on 2400! > > Just saw this on the web, thought oters might be int