On Jan 10, 2014, at 6:28 PM, Scott Holder wrote: > Oh, there's no point at all beyond "Because I wanted to try". Just part of > the silliness I like to do. > > The image is about 5GB. Not very much of it is used, I could probably slim it > down quite a lot. I'm mostly lazy. The drive I'm using is only 3GB total, and > I have 2GB devoted to Linux and 1GB to Mac OS. > > As for the network speed, given the SCSI speed it might actually have been > faster over the network than locally. I haven't benchmarked the network speed > but I only get about 1 - 1.5 MB/sec out of it. I'm not sure if this is a > factor of the drive or the SCSI drivers in Linux since I believe it's > supposed to be able to get 5MB/s.
I don't believe network speed on an LC 475 is ever going to achieve 1 MB/sec... That is around it's theoretical maximum (10 Mb/sec) and realistically it probably reaches 400-450 KB/sec maximum... Maybe a bit more if you are going downhill and you have a stiff tailwind. Even if you have one of the Dayna BlueStreak 10/100 cards you aren't likely to hit anything near the 5+ MB/sec speed of the built-in SCSI. If memory serves, the onboard SCSI can achieve close to 6 MB/sec with a fast enough drive. I have certainly exceeded 5 MB/sec using a Quadra 950's built-in SCSI. It's all pretty much a moot point if there isn't too much data being sent though. That's the reason I asked about the size of the image. Though 5 GB is nothing to sneeze at, the difference between .5 MB/sec and 5 MB/sec is not significant if you are looking at 3 days to boot. Now if we were talking about 500 GB... > When talking about speed, keep in mind we're talking about emulated code. > Fast optimized 68040 code was often faster than poorly written PPC code in > the very early 601 era. For this experiment it's having to translate the PPC > instructions to 68k before executing them - this is always orders of > magnitude slower than native code. It's just usually you're emulating a > slower, obsolete architecture on a much faster newer architecture (think > Rosetta on Intel Mac OS X running PPC code) rather than the other way around. A big part of the emulation problem, as I understand it, is that you are trying to emulate a RISC processor on a CISC processor. Every RISC op-code will take numerous (slow and ponderous) CISC op-codes to emulate where the reverse (one slow and ponderous CISC turning into several quick and efficient RISC) works much better. But in any case, emulation is a snail-like process... I still shudder at the original SoftPC / Virtual PC offerings... And I think those were PPC only (no 68K option). > Having an activity monitor auto-start is a good idea. I'll check on that. > > Scott Good luck, and let us know how it's going... Sometime next week I would guess. :-) Derek > On 1/10/2014 3:57 PM, Derek Morton wrote: >> Ahhhh... Danamania... I wonder what she is up to these days? >> >> I am not sure I see the point in this exercise, though a great deal of my >> ideas are likely considered fruitless by most. >> >> How large is the image you are running it from? You mentioned possibly >> tweaking some of the settings - Perhaps having activity monitor autostart >> might help you see if there is anything going on (and cpu usage). Do you >> think much of the slow execution was due to network speed? Perhaps on a 950 >> with a nice fast hard drive... Big display... Over-clocked... >> >> I know our current machines are faster than older ones, but I really never >> thought the PPCs were THAT much faster than the 68Ks... 3 days to boot?!?! >> LOL >> >> Derek >> >> On Jan 8, 2014, at 10:44 PM, Scott Holder wrote: >> >>> Picking up where Danamania left off many years ago, I finally got around to >>> trying to boot Mac OS X on my 68k Mac. I've created a page about it so far >>> at http://iamscott.net/68kosx/ . So far I seem to have gotten farther than >>> she did! I can't say it's exactly usable, per se, but we'll see what comes >>> of it. I also really, really need to get a decent camera and some studio >>> lights... >>> >>> Scott H. > > -- -- -- ----- You received this message because you are a member of the Vintage Macs group. The list FAQ is at http://lowendmac.com/lists/vintagemacs.shtml and our netiquette guide is at http://www.lowendmac.com/lists/netiquette.shtml To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To leave this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/vintage-macs Support for older Macs: http://lowendmac.com/services/ --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Vintage Macs" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
