PDA

View Full Version : Will OS X Boot from FireWire? Please Help



rlmoss
03-22-2002, 04:23 AM
##sorry for pleading tone; Apple has no new ideas & no one picked up on this post at new users or firewire. Many thanks. Richard##

I've given up on Apple Tech [see earlier thread]: 10.0.3 bombed last fall; last week's update to 10.1.3 killed that volume. AT's only thought is re-initialize the drive; don't use separate partitions for 0S 9 and OS X; write the mfg if your Granite firewire isn't seen on desktop.

I now think I'm better off with a 9.2.2 boot partition, 2 gb devote to storage; and a 30mg SuSe boot and AUX/root; AUX/swap. That would be my laptop, portable computer.

On the Granite Firewire, I'd install OS X 1.0.3>1.1>developer tools>1.1.3 and OS Classic. Apple says they can't support it or recommend it. Hardly matters, given the last six month history with Apple.

Will this work? Would I increase the probability of its working by switching to Intech's Harddisc Tool Kit?

Many thanks

Richard Moss



------------------
Richard Moss
Law School, Uni District Columbia
4200 Connecticut Av., NW
Washington, DC 20008

tel: 202-415-6801

dragon_x
03-22-2002, 10:26 AM
What kind of Mac is this?

The newer Macs can boot off the built-in firewire in 9 or X. I usually run with X on one parititon and 9 on another. I have not tried installing X, 9 or Dev Tools on any firewire drives.

------------------
The Cost Of Freedom:
Every bit of energy.
Every ounce of courage.
Every drop of blood.

TZ
03-22-2002, 10:33 AM
Without knowing what Mac you are using, I'd be guessing or a shot in the dark. FireWire booting is not supported on all Macs, even if it allows installing.

I always recommend starting fresh with new updated versions.

There have been firmware updates for firewire storage to improve compatibility. As for Intech, I don't think it is needed but read what they have on their web site. I have no trouble using Disk Utility to partition FireWire (IBM Deskstar 60GXP w/ Oxford-911 case) but your mileage may vary.

I get the feeling that while OS X likes to be on the first volume and modifies the boot blocks to work I have no hands-on with SuSe (7.3?) as to how well its multiboot will integrate.

You don't need separate volumes for Classic and X. The only reason to do so is if you still boot into OS 9 and/or want to run non-native utilities, or need two OS 9 system folders (one slimmed down for Classic, one full-blown). I don't run OS 9 or Classic.

rlmoss
03-22-2002, 11:25 AM
Many thanks Gregory & Dragon_X: the Mac is August 2001 production iBook, 356 ram. My firewire is a roll-your-own Granite Case & IBM 120 GXP Deskstar.

I was amazed that it mounted to the desktop on first start-up because I never ran the Charmismac software Granite supplied. Still wonder whose driver is managing the Deskstar since it was the OEM rather than retail product.

As shipped, Mac OS X 10.0.3 hardly lasted a week before it disappeared [like
Chileans under Pinochet] Internet Explorer. It was downhill from there & even the Techs working the Genuis Bar at Apple's very spiffy McClean VA/Tyson Corner store, "Just wipe the drive & write zeros and re-install everything. (bExtent tree error)

To the point: the 9.2.2 partition on iBook internal see the Granite/IBM. I boot using option/down into Bootmanager.

I'd install MacOS 10.0.3>10.1>10.1.2 tonight as long as I don't have to worry about the Granite being disappeared.

Is there any theory under which this would be a risk? [Only re-iterated because Apple 800 tech said "we cannot support that," and were barely supportive of zeroing the existent MacOS X 10.1.3 partition. Bottom line: they wanted me [again!] to zero iBook internal; make it a single partition drive; & install OS X there.

I couldn't tell if it were a personal recommendation from the Tech or Apple's. It's not Goleman's nor what I read here.

Again, thanks

Richard Moss

------------------
Richard Moss
Law School, Uni District Columbia
4200 Connecticut Av., NW
Washington, DC 20008

tel: 202-415-6801