Re(2): 7.1.1 Slowness Revealed! See the light!

>> Got a reliable link to a 68K-compatible version of MacBench? I can't >> seem to >> find one. > > I've been looking for that as well. Definitely something nice to have > on a site like Gamba's so it doesn't disappear. > > Who wrote MacBench? > > -- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] I got mine at:

Re(2): 7.1.1 Slowness Revealed! See the light!

At 07:09 -0600 on 03/01/03, Derek Morton wrote: >MacBench was written by Ziff-Davis, They stopped developing or >supporting Macintosh Benchmark software years ago, although I believe >that you can still download version 5.0 from their FTP site (all Last I checked they said you couldn't, because t

Re: Re(2): 7.1.1 Slowness Revealed! See the light!

At 00:47 -0500 on 03/01/03, Charles Shannon Hendrix wrote: >On Wed, Jan 01, 2003 at 10:34:17PM -0500, the pickle wrote: > >> SCSI Manager 4.3 doesn't *appear* to get used, even on later OS versions - a >> guy over on Vintage Macs has had some problems that lead him to believe it >> isn't active -

Re(2): 7.1.1 Slowness Revealed! See the light!

SCSI Manager 4.3 was not built into the OS until (I believe) system 8. It was an extension which first appeared with system 7.5. Read this for a good explanation: http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=17019 I would not be too certain that the extension is completely system 7.1 compa

Re: Re(2): 7.1.1 Slowness Revealed! See the light!

On Wed, Jan 01, 2003 at 10:34:17PM -0500, the pickle wrote: > SCSI Manager 4.3 doesn't *appear* to get used, even on later OS versions - a > guy over on Vintage Macs has had some problems that lead him to believe it > isn't active - but that would definitely be a factor, and it's 7.1 compatible, >

Re: 7.1.1 Slowness Revealed! See the light!

On Wed, Jan 01, 2003 at 10:32:10PM -0500, the pickle wrote: > An SE/30 with AppleShare Server 3 installed on it, running 7.1 plus all the > extras I list in the FAQ, takes about 15 seconds to go from warm power-on to > full usable desktop (warm power-on because RAM tests take forever with 128MB >

Re: Re(2): 7.1.1 Slowness Revealed! See the light!

At 10:43 -0600 on 30/12/02, Derek Morton wrote: >I haven't seen anybody mention it, but what about the benefit of SCSI >manager 4.3? A Quadra 800 will definitely benefit from it, and the SCSI Manager 4.3 doesn't *appear* to get used, even on later OS versions - a guy over on Vintage Macs has had

Re: 7.1.1 Slowness Revealed! See the light!

At 01:51 -0500 on 30/12/02, Charles Shannon Hendrix wrote: >How long does one of your machines take to boot, say the Q900 for example? An SE/30 with AppleShare Server 3 installed on it, running 7.1 plus all the extras I list in the FAQ, takes about 15 seconds to go from warm power-on to full usab

Re: Re(2): 7.1.1 Slowness Revealed! See the light!

I haven't seen anybody mention it, but what about the benefit of SCSI manager 4.3? A Quadra 800 will definitely benefit from it, and the performance boost MIGHT be as great as 50%. Try removing the SCSI Manager extension and see if the performance drops down to 7.1.1 levels. Also, don't forg

Re: 7.1.1 Slowness Revealed! See the light!

On Sun, Dec 29, 2002 at 04:19:30PM -0500, the pickle wrote: > At 14:29 -0500 on 29/12/02, Charles Shannon Hendrix wrote: > > >This is true, but I did a comparison of 7.1 and 7.5.5, both fresh installs > >with identical settings, the same networking, and as close as possible > >on extensions and co

Re: 7.1.1 Slowness Revealed! See the light!

PowerTalk all around of course. on 12/29/02 6:22 PM, Michael Dawe at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > 7 Pro, with PowerTalk removed is the same as 7.1 upgraded with the > Scriptable Finder with the exception of one extra feature unavailable to > 7.1, AFAIK. Very fast to boot, and runs in 3 Meg of RAM

Re: 7.1.1 Slowness Revealed! See the light!

on 29/12/2002, the pickle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > At 01:35 -0600 on 29/12/02, Dan Palka wrote: > >> System 7.1.1 proved to be not just slower, but significantly slower in >> several >> key areas, the biggest being disk access. Speedometer reported that disk >> access records were 143% in fa

Re: 7.1.1 Slowness Revealed! See the light!

If any differences it would be close, not 43% off. Sorry pickle this ones not in your favor. on 12/29/02 3:17 PM, the pickle at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > At 14:34 -0600 on 29/12/02, Dan Palka wrote: > >> No actually its one 4gb drive with two 2gb partitions on it. 7.5.5 on one >> and >> 7.1.1

Re: 7.1.1 Slowness Revealed! See the light!

At 14:29 -0500 on 29/12/02, Charles Shannon Hendrix wrote: >This is true, but I did a comparison of 7.1 and 7.5.5, both fresh installs >with identical settings, the same networking, and as close as possible >on extensions and control panels. > >7.5.5 was faster on my 50MHz '030 Mac IIci with 128MB

Re: 7.1.1 Slowness Revealed! See the light!

At 14:34 -0600 on 29/12/02, Dan Palka wrote: >No actually its one 4gb drive with two 2gb partitions on it. 7.5.5 on one and >7.1.1 on the other. > >Nice try though :) Still doesn't make for valid results. Which partition is physically closer to the spindle? -- the pickle FAQ

Re: 7.1.1 Slowness Revealed! See the light!

On Sun, Dec 29, 2002 at 09:17:22AM -0500, the pickle wrote: > Furthermore, settings such as disk cache and disk driver version (did you > reformat between installs?) can dramatically affect benchmarking results. This is true, but I did a comparison of 7.1 and 7.5.5, both fresh installs with ident

Re: 7.1.1 Slowness Revealed! See the light!

No actually its one 4gb drive with two 2gb partitions on it. 7.5.5 on one and 7.1.1 on the other. Nice try though :) -- From: Quadlist, Sun, Dec 29, 2002 -- At 10:33 -0600 on 29/12/02, Dan Palka wrote: >No I did not reformat, 7.1 was installed on another, already partitioned by >7.5.

Re(2): Re(2): 7.1.1 Slowness Revealed! See the light!

At 11:23 AM 12/29/2002 -0600, you wrote: >Soon though I may switch over to some other brand of server since my small >business is growing and clients need more flexible servers. I don't want to >upgrade the system software though. Don't forget about various Linuxes that will run on there, thereby

Re(2): 7.1.1 Slowness Revealed! See the light!

At 10:33 -0600 on 29/12/02, Dan Palka wrote: >No I did not reformat, 7.1 was installed on another, already partitioned by >7.5.5 hard drive that I used to keep documents on. So I'm guessing they were Different hard drives cannot be compared by benchmarks because the hard disks themselves are muc

Re(2): Re(2): 7.1.1 Slowness Revealed! See the light!

When I first set up my 8600 as a web server I toyed with a lot of server software, like Rumpus, WebStar, and even MS PWS. I found MacHTTP to be the best HTTP server to suit my needs, and NetPresenz to be the best FTP server. Both run simultaneously, ever single day, even right now, perfectly on 7

Re: Re(2): 7.1.1 Slowness Revealed! See the light!

Dan, Out of curiosity, what software are you using for your webserver? I just put one up on my q950 and installed some mail software to replace one of my many ill-fated P3 systems and it keeps up really well. I was next thinking of attempting an AU/X install on a q800 since its probably one of the

Re(2): 7.1.1 Slowness Revealed! See the light!

Sorry but if Speedometer keeps telling me everything is slower, then something must be slower. And Speedometer's disk readings remained constant through all of the multiple times I ran the test, and so did the other lowere scores. Disk cache setting were the same. No I did not reformat, 7.1 was

Re: 7.1.1 Slowness Revealed! See the light!

At 01:35 -0600 on 29/12/02, Dan Palka wrote: >System 7.1.1 proved to be not just slower, but significantly slower in several >key areas, the biggest being disk access. Speedometer reported that disk >access records were 143% in favor of 7.5.5. How could this be true? >Similarly low scores were a

Re: 7.1.1 Slowness Revealed! See the light!

At 01:35 -0600 on 29/12/02, Dan Palka wrote: >System 7.1.1 proved to be not just slower, but significantly slower in several >key areas, the biggest being disk access. Speedometer reported that disk >access records were 143% in favor of 7.5.5. How could this be true? >Similarly low scores were a

7.1.1 Slowness Revealed! See the light!

Well have my eyes been opened today. After installing system 7.1.1 (7.1 Pro) I booted up to find a Quadra that theoretically should be much much faster than the same with 7.5.5 installed. I was curious to see if Speedometer 4.0 would find any differences of the 7.1.1 install. I thought to myself