OS X 10.2 on the 6500: First Impressions | PowerPC Macintosh Liberation Army

#1 Sun May 27, 2007 5:43 pm OS X 10.2 on the 6500: First Impressions

It's slow. Real slow.

Here's the system configuration:
Power Macintosh 6500/300
300 MHz 603e, no L2 cache
4 GB ATA hard drive (stock)
128 MB RAM
Stock video (ATI Rage II)
400 MHz L2 G3 accelerator (not active in OS X)

Installing OS X was a bit of a bear. I tried following the instructions posted on Thomas Koons' excellent 6400 Zone, but no matter what I did, I couldn't get OS X to install. The SCSI CD-ROM in my 6500 just wouldn't boot OS X. I had lots of trouble configuring Apple Software Restore to get it to create an image of the CD on a partition. In fact, in the end, I gave up on the whole idea of installing OS X using the 6500.

Instead, I removed the hard drive, installed it in a beige G3 desktop, and installed OS X 10.2 via the G3. That was actually considerably easier! Then, after updating to OS 9.1 on the 6500, I could use XPostFacto to boot into OS X.

Boot time is absurdly long. Informal "stopwatch" timing of booting from cold takes 10 minutes and 25 seconds! That is the time from pushing the power button to the first appearance of a full menubar.

Heck, according to top, PID 0 (the kernel or "kernel_task") takes 80 - 90% of the CPU all by itself! That makes getting anything done an unrealistic prospect.

So, can you run 10.2.x on a 6500? Yep. Should you? Nope.

While I've got OS X installed, though, I'm giong to play around with trying to get the Linux bootloaders to load the OS X kernel.

Peace,
Drew

Power to the PowerPC!

#2 Sun May 27, 2007 6:15 pm

10 minutes?! Surprised

There's definitely not something wrong with it?! Is the 603 really that much slower, MHz for MHz, than the G3? Is it possible to add cache to these machines, as that is said to improve the performance of OS X a lot (I seem to remember reading about some situation whereby the cache can become disabled when putting OS X on a beige G3 and as a result it runs very slowly). A better video card may well help too.

Main system: custom C2D 2.66GHz tower/4GB RAM/2600XT 512 MB/500GB HD/XP Pro x86+Vista Business x64
Main Mac: Beige G3 minitower (Sonnet G4 500MHz/640 MB DVD/USB/Radeon 32 MB/OS 9.2.2+10.4.11)

#3 Sun May 27, 2007 6:50 pm

Just out of curiosity, if you were to install, oh, I dunno... 10.2.8 then Firefox2, on that machine, how many bounces might it take to load, compared to 10.2 on another machine, and how long would it take to load, compared to the other machine. (two important questions: are dock bounces a valid benchmark, and how long would it take to launch firefox2. Razz

)

Anyway, cool that it did eventually work. It might be a better idea to put an actual L2 cache in than another processor that won't be used. I know that L2 caches make a huge difference, and a 300MHz can be the most efficient in the world (603 are pretty efficient) but without cache... it has to wait for the rest of the system.

[Insert Cool Signature here!]

#4 Sun May 27, 2007 10:20 pm

Agreed, L2 cache makes a huge difference.

I dropped in 256 KB of L2, and the boot process only took 3:15! Wink

It's not quite what I call "stupid fast" yet, but it's also not stupid slow...

Now the kernel is taking between 5 and 10% of the CPU. Curiously, just moving the pointer around the screen sucks down up to 50% of the CPU, and clicking anywhere pegs the CPU Monitor at 100% until the window becomes active. So there certainly doesn't seem to be a whole lot of spare processor time available.

It would be nice to get a reasonable sstem running, though. I'd really love to get it installed on my TAM so I could play iTunes through those lovely speakers.

It is actually bearable. Possibly even usable. I'm installing the 10.2.8 update and Safari 1.0 right now. Stay tuned!

Peace,
Drew

Power to the PowerPC!

#5 Mon May 28, 2007 5:29 am

Have you tried ShadowKiller? That is mean to speed up older Macs running OS X, and would probably help considering you're using such an old video card.

Main system: custom C2D 2.66GHz tower/4GB RAM/2600XT 512 MB/500GB HD/XP Pro x86+Vista Business x64
Main Mac: Beige G3 minitower (Sonnet G4 500MHz/640 MB DVD/USB/Radeon 32 MB/OS 9.2.2+10.4.11)

#6 Mon May 28, 2007 10:17 am

Well four hours of futzing around with Software Update has gotten me nowhere. There seem to be some stability problems. Every time I run SU, the Mac crashes. Once, it completely locked up like in the days of yore (no KP notice or anything)! But I get about 30 seconds into the download, and SU either causes a KP or it cores.

If I get the time tonight, I'll download the updates in a browser.

Peace,
Drew

Power to the PowerPC!

#7 Wed May 30, 2007 2:22 pm

Dock bounces aren't a valid benchmark, after a while it will stop bouncing, regardless if it has finished loading or not.

So this is how PowerPC dies... with thunderous applause

#8 Wed May 30, 2007 11:32 pm

#9 Thu May 31, 2007 3:42 am

Does that mean that installations that have been upgraded from one OS versions to another are much slower than clean installations then, like tends to be the case on Windows? 17 bounces for Safari sounds very slow, I'm pretty sure Safari loads really quickly on my G3 - yours must be taking around 15 seconds if it's bouncing that much, which seems far too long if everything is normal.

Main system: custom C2D 2.66GHz tower/4GB RAM/2600XT 512 MB/500GB HD/XP Pro x86+Vista Business x64
Main Mac: Beige G3 minitower (Sonnet G4 500MHz/640 MB DVD/USB/Radeon 32 MB/OS 9.2.2+10.4.11)

#10 Thu May 31, 2007 6:39 am

I wouldn't say that fifteen seconds is excessive. I'd say that seventeen bounces, but not necessarily fifteen seconds.

The bounces thing comes from, a few years ago, when OS X hardware varied wildly enough to make a difference. OS X ran easily enough on 233MHz G3s with 64mb of ram, and 200MHz 604s with also-64mb-of-ram. That was a big difference from, say, a G3/450 with 512mb or a gig of ram. (which is what my OS X Developer friend had at the time, while I had an iMac, and my other friend had the 7300/200)

When I upgraded my Jaguar to Panther, some years ago, I didn't notice a big speed hit, but my install didn't last that long either, only a few months.

It's not the best benchmark, but it does seem indicative.

Naturally, few of my apps now load in more than 5 bounces, the only ones I can think of that do are final cut pro, and photoshop. I'll pay more attention next time I launch them though.

[Insert Cool Signature here!]

#11 Thu May 31, 2007 7:03 am

I'd say that long seems excessive, considering that Safari loads much faster than that on my G3, which isn't even supposed to be able to run Tiger and also only has 640 MB of Ram, compared to the 1 GB that the iMac in question here has. Loading times for a program (which is what the bounces measure, though actual time would be a better measure if the bouncing does stop after a certain amount of time regardless of how far the program has loaded) would seem to be a reasonable benchmark, although non-scientific - as long as the exact same program and the same OS then it does provide some comparison of the performance of different machines.

Main system: custom C2D 2.66GHz tower/4GB RAM/2600XT 512 MB/500GB HD/XP Pro x86+Vista Business x64
Main Mac: Beige G3 minitower (Sonnet G4 500MHz/640 MB DVD/USB/Radeon 32 MB/OS 9.2.2+10.4.11)

#12 Thu May 31, 2007 10:13 am

To begin to track down the cause of the delay I set up a dummy user with administrator's privileges and fast user switching. This 'testuser' may be useful for many other purposes later on. Safari loadtime for testuser decreased from 16-17 bounces to one bounce. That's the Safari that we knew and loved.

Now I need to discover where is the dead weight in my normal administrator's account. However, having done a fair job of hijacking Drew's thread already, I shall start a new one when I have something further to report.

de

(60x) 13DT + 3PB + PTPro; (G3) 7DT/MT; (G4) 3T + PB. System 8.1 to OS 10.5.8

#13 Thu May 31, 2007 4:35 pm

The biggest point here is: are you all testing the first program launch from a fresh boot, or successive launches? It always takes longer to launch a program the first time from a fresh boot than it does to launch it again later on. I almost never shut off my Mac mini, I sleep it, so my software launches nice and fast most of the time.

#14 Thu May 31, 2007 4:55 pm

#15 Thu May 31, 2007 5:10 pm

#16 Thu May 31, 2007 6:32 pm

a 20-month uptime would indicate that no, 10.3 has not been updated in awhile. He said he was running 10.3.9.

I'm still running 10.4.8 on my iMac, come to think of it.

[Insert Cool Signature here!]

#17 Fri Jun 1, 2007 10:04 am

#18 Fri Jun 1, 2007 11:02 am

So you mean that it doesn't reset the system's uptime counter when you restart, or just that you don't count that as downtime? If it's the former, wow, I never knew that, I will have to test this by restarting my PC and seeing if the uptime in Everest has reset to zero.

Main system: custom C2D 2.66GHz tower/4GB RAM/2600XT 512 MB/500GB HD/XP Pro x86+Vista Business x64
Main Mac: Beige G3 minitower (Sonnet G4 500MHz/640 MB DVD/USB/Radeon 32 MB/OS 9.2.2+10.4.11)

#19 Fri Jun 1, 2007 2:53 pm

In my innocence/ignorance I had not heard of any software uptime counters. I didn't realize that you were writing with one in mind. I simply recorded when Tiger and Panther were installed in the relevant 'boxes', since which time the iMacs have neither fallen over nor been switched off.

de

(60x) 13DT + 3PB + PTPro; (G3) 7DT/MT; (G4) 3T + PB. System 8.1 to OS 10.5.8

#20 Fri Jun 1, 2007 3:50 pm

Ah, I see now - yes, there is recording of uptime, at least in Windows. Programs like Everest will display it - I'm not sure if there's a way to easily get it without using additional software to what comes with Windows. Presumably the Mac also has such a feature - I'm guessing there would be a Terminal command for it, or there must be utilities that will display it.

Main system: custom C2D 2.66GHz tower/4GB RAM/2600XT 512 MB/500GB HD/XP Pro x86+Vista Business x64
Main Mac: Beige G3 minitower (Sonnet G4 500MHz/640 MB DVD/USB/Radeon 32 MB/OS 9.2.2+10.4.11)

#21 Fri Jun 1, 2007 3:52 pm

I agree with equill in that I am more impressed by time between _crashes_ than I am by time between restarts. Proactive system maintenance is a good thing, not a bad thing. It seems stupid not to regularly apply patches and/or restart your personal computer. The only folks who can't do this are people who operate mission critical systems, and I'm pretty sure none of us do this from our desk. Wink

On the other hand, I do think it is a little misleading to not reset your counter with a reboot.

Type "uptime" in the terminal to see how OS X tracks it.

Peace,
Drew

Power to the PowerPC!

#22 Fri Jun 1, 2007 3:55 pm

Crashes are very rare these days with any machine that is properly configured and running Mac OS X or Windows 2000+ though - the only difference regarding uptime is that some of us will switch our PCs off when not using them, while others will leave them running or put them into standby/hibernate (the latter two counting as uptime as counted by the system).

Main system: custom C2D 2.66GHz tower/4GB RAM/2600XT 512 MB/500GB HD/XP Pro x86+Vista Business x64
Main Mac: Beige G3 minitower (Sonnet G4 500MHz/640 MB DVD/USB/Radeon 32 MB/OS 9.2.2+10.4.11)

#23 Fri Jun 1, 2007 5:09 pm

Uptime counting depends largely on the specific operating system. Mac OS X counds uptime as the time between reboots, and includes time spent sleeping in that.

On the same hardware though, Gentoo Linux counts uptime as time spent between reboots, and excludes sleeping. I had my PowerBook G3 turned on, but sleeping for about a week, and it reported an "uptime" of about ninety minutes. I used it for an hour, and it then reported an uptime of about 2 hours 30 minutes.

I think long periods of reliability, even with shutting down at night, is more impressive than long periods between restarting, which with modern mobile computers, can be artificially stretched. Also, it shows that the machine is, in generally, "ready to be used" more often, whereas less reliable systems tend to need a lot more work than well-maintained systems.

I know because I've taken care of Windows systems that aren't well-maintained, and I end up reformatting two or three of them every few months, because some people don't know what to do to keep them running properly.

[Insert Cool Signature here!]

#24 Sat Jun 2, 2007 5:19 pm Re: OS X 10.2 on the 6500: First Impressions

#25 Sat Jun 2, 2007 7:44 pm

I thought the statement was that the g3 wasn't active, just sitting in the slot wasting power. He later said that putting an L2 cache in the L2 cache slot sped things up significantly, almost to the point of usability.

[Insert Cool Signature here!]

#26 Sat Jun 2, 2007 10:14 pm

Indeed, the G3 was not active. And adding 256 KB of L2 made it much more capable. There does appear to be a stability problem, and I'm not interested enough at the moment to track it down. Sooner or later, I'll get back to updating to 10.2.8.

Peace,
Drew

Power to the PowerPC!

#27 Sat Jun 2, 2007 11:09 pm

I'm interested in seeing how this progresses when you find more time for it - We've got a 6500/275 at the high school, and I'm pondering potential uses for it. OS X would be cool although not very useful, at least for what they wanted, and compared with just using OS 7.6 or 8.0

[Insert Cool Signature here!]

#28 Sun Jun 3, 2007 7:26 pm

#29 Fri Jun 29, 2007 7:04 pm

Yeah.

Open Terminal.

Type:

uptime

done.

#30 Fri Jun 29, 2007 9:53 pm

On that note, have there been any advances in 10.2 on a 6500? It sounds so unusable and esoteric that it's cool! Very Happy

[Insert Cool Signature here!]

#31 Sat Jun 30, 2007 10:07 am

when 10.2 runs shouldn´t be tiger possible, too? I read somewhere maybe 2 weeks ago that someone was able to run tiger on a pre-g3 with stock cpu...
cant find the link anymore.

#32 Sat Jun 30, 2007 10:54 pm

Yeah, but it requires a custom kernel. You have to either compile the Darwin kernel or substitute an earlier kernel, IIRC.

I haven't done any more work on the 6500 OS X machine. With the L2 cache, it was actually useable, but not exactly fast. I'd really like to get OS X's kernel booted via the Linux boot loaders such as BootX or the MkLinux Booter. Unfortunately, this is probably beyond my meager skills and will take some serious re-engineering of the boot loaders to get them to load the OS X/Darwin kernel...

Unless there is a Darwin kernel booter for Old World Macs that works with the L2 upgrades on 6500s... Wink

Peace,
Drew

Power to the PowerPC!

#33 Sun Jul 1, 2007 3:34 pm

Well, maybe I'll test this out if I ever get my grubby little paws on a 6500, I doubt that the high school users of the 6500 would like theirs to have 10.2 put on it, but eventually...

hmm... is the boot loader just to make the L2 G3/G4 upgrade work, or is it part of your evil plan to quad-boot a 6500? Wink

[Insert Cool Signature here!]

#34 Mon Feb 1, 2010 11:53 am

The really big problem with the 6500 is the type of RAM you are limited to, not the 603 chip. It must be 2k refresh and there are no memory sticks in 2k refresh that allow you to upgrade beyond 128mb which is too lean for OS X. Until someone comes up with a way to upgrade the memory controller to recognize 4k refresh memory OS X will always run horribly on the 6400/6500.

I saw a website from a guy in Germany who managed to get Tiger running on a 604 based Powermac that didn't have the 128mb memory limitation of the 6500 and it ran fine given enough memory. The 603 and 604 are similar enough that a 603 machine with enough memory should also work fine but given the fact that the 6500 was the pinnacle of 603 Macs with it's memory limitation we won't likely ever see a 603 running OS X acceptably.