Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: Upgrading from 9600/200 to 9600/300

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Oakland, CA, USA
    Posts
    76

    Default

    Fella has 2 Power Mac 9600s, one a 9600/300 MHz machine, the other a 9600/200. Fella upgrades his 9600/300 to a G3, pulling its original processor card out in the process. Fella then tries to upgrade his 9600/200 to a 9600/300 by swapping out the processor card. Fella is surprized when he sees that he gets absolutely no image on the monitor when he boots up. He makes sure that the processor card & all the RAM are properly seated. He reboots & is met again by just a black screen. Fella puts back the 9600/200 MHz card & the system boots up just fine. Like the original 9600/300, there is no cache module on the motherboard of the 9600/200. So the question is, what does it take to upgrade this machine to a 9600/300? Please, no Henny Youngman type replies. ;}

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Grangeville, ID USA
    Posts
    9,142

    Default

    What's wrong with Henny?

    ?Seriously though, the motherboards are different. The 300 is a MachV motherboard and cpu, the cache is built into the daughtercard. You cannot run the MachV on a Tsunami 200MHZ motherboard, sorry.

    Rick

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Posts
    936

    Default

    The 9600 machines had 2 different revisions. The earlier revision went up to 233 Mhz with 604e processors (as designed by Apple), while the later revision (named Mach V) included 250, 300 and 350 Mhz 604ev cards with inline caches built onto the processor card. The processor cards used different signal and core voltages, as well as addressing the cache entirely differently.

    So basically, you can't do it. "Fella" would be better off upgrading his earlier model 9600 with the G3 (some folks argued for a while that the older machines had better memory thruput) and using the 9600/300 as is.

    The later model x600 machines used a processor that was actually close to early G3 performance and release times, which is why they never sold so well. They also can use speculative addressing (popular checkbox on G3 cache control SW), which can boost performance by a few percentage points.

    I have upgrade both models, and currently have a Mach V that is into its 3rd processor upgrade (due to the need for speed), and can answer a lot of questions about the models. I am sure scads of others will be along shortly to add in some points to help out.


    I will search for some more links, but http://www.xlr8yourmac.com/tips/mach5.html should give you some more basics about the differences.




    ------------------
    "The first step in attaining knowledge is admitting you know nothing."

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Oakland, CA, USA
    Posts
    76

    Default

    Dogstarman,

    Siriusly though, thanks for the link & for your & Ricks' help in putting this issue to rest for me. The 9600/200 belongs to a friend of mine who has left it with me to play it, with the general plan of duplicating the kind of upgrade path that I've taken with my 9600/300 --> G3/375 MHz. Until he actually gives me the money to upgrade the processor, etc., I reckon that it's probaly fast enough as it is. However, I do have designs on my PM 9600, which I recently picked up for $150. I'm hoping to be able to run Jaguar (OS 10.2) on it when it comes out by installing "XPostFacto" to make it OS X-compatible. It does not yet have OS X on it, but it'll have 576 MB of RAM by the time I get my hands on Jaguar. So I was wondering just what your & gallery's take is on running OS X on a legacy machine like this. Do you have any suggestions along these lines? I'm not really expecting that it's going to run "insanely great", but I thought it'd be kind of an interesting tribute to such a legacy Mac. If I find that it runs adequately, maybe I'll just trade off my 350 overclocked to 375 MHz ZIF & put it in my friend's 9600/200, opting to go with a faster ZIF in my 9600 if it's likely to be worth the effort. So what do you think? I submit my case to the forum, Henny Youngman jokes notwithstanding.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Posts
    936

    Default

    My take on running Jag (or X at all) on a legacy Mac like that is this:

    Why? It sure is a tribute. I would love to honor my old 9600 demon with such an OS, but I am so damnes comfortable running OS9.x on it that I am not willing to tinker now. I figure it this way...I pushed it about as far as it would go, took some chances and unsupported devices along the way, but Apple set up a roadblock. So after 5 years of upgrades of all sorts, I am letting her sit at this OS. It has become the perfect excuse to get a new Mac.

    If you need to upgrade, or feel that the consumers out there have had a good enough track record with Legacy-On-X, go for it. Just be sure that all (or at least all your critical) your SW and HW will jive once you are Ten'd.

    Some things keeping me away from X:
    -No LocalTalk
    -No tape drivers
    -No sound input support at this time
    -RAM de-interleaving is a distinct possibility (hard with 8 128MB sticks!!)
    -Sound input level might lock up permanently (not an issue if you have external spekaers)
    -Ummm...and a lot of time and patching to get it to work. I would like to do it, but this 9600 is literally the backbone of my entire network. Maybe after I get the new Mac. Then again, once I get the new Mac, the woman in my life will never see me again.

    Either way, let us all know what's happening with the project!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •