This page is a wiki. Please login or create an account to begin editing.


41 posts / 0 new
Last post
OpenSourceMac's picture
Offline
Joined: 2019 Jan 21
Am SO over Disk Warrior...

So as most people know when Classic Mac OS goes wrong, it can be a pain to fix. Disk Warrior 2 has always been the gold standard, but even in 2020, it is CRAZY Expensive. OS X's Disk utility can also be useful, but having been setup to deal with Classic, often misses fixing things like faulty B-Trees and such. I have an OS9 Dream System that's been a work in progress for over 10 years and it has a number of apps I actually NEED to have working but crashes nearly every time I have to open. It often requires 5 or 6 tries to actually use it. Norton Ulilities for OS9 isn't bad - at all, but twice trying to get it to fix the drive has resulted total corruption of the partition 8-(

Well, on a whim tried something different. Carbon Copy Cloner (Shareware Version 3.4.7). I know the data is readable, and OS9 is often drag/drop installation anyway, so just erased the partition and used CCC to copy the data from the corrupt disk-image over to it.
VIOLA!! Fixed.

If you need that version (since they don't provide it anymore, I can upload it - I only have the app, but it's easy to use).

Comments

WhosIt.There's picture
Offline
Joined: 2014 Aug 23

If the drive keeps getting errors, then it's likely the drive is dying and should be replaced.

Erasing the drive will "fix" errors, but the files copied back onto the drive by Carbon Copy Cloner may still have corruptions caused by the errors when it performed the backup.

Also to be noted is that Carbon Copy Cloner does not copy everything. Every time I have had to revert to a "clone" backup (under MacOS X), I lose my custom drive icon. Although all the actual files should be be there, it's anyone's guess what other extra information is missing.

OpenSourceMac's picture
Offline
Joined: 2019 Jan 21

CCC depends on how you set it up. The key is to use the "Delete Immediately" option for root-level items on the receiving drive (and your icon will be saved). On another note, how you apply the icon matters too. If you paste it in OSX, OS9 has only partial support for it, but if you also paste it in OS9 itself, then there is virtually no chance of loosing it again.

As for corruption of data, the physical drive is a brand new HGST Ultrastar Enterprise drive, so I know it isn't failing. The problems are how OS9 stores volume-bitmap data (Superblock in Linux Terms). It's non-standard and often very difficult to fix. But CCC worked flawlessly. I did a full-check with Norton and other than a few bundle-bits being off, it is essentially like a new install - ready to get corrupted all over again in time. The program/user data isn't what typically goes wrong with OS9, it's drive indexing and B-trees, which are essentially cache files/metadata you can live without. As long as you don't loose your file-forks by miss handling, and your original drive isn't actually dying, it's unlikely that this would not work for other systems too.

m68k's picture
Offline
Joined: 2016 Dec 30

Even a brand new disk can be faulty. So run a disk stress test first, for assumption is the mother of all data loss.
I am runnning my MacOS 8.1 system on an emulator with HFS+ and HFS disk images. I had more "hard shutdowns" than I can count, for Android loves to kill CPU hungry apps in the background.
But in 4+ years I've only lost one (1!) disk image to data corruption. So at least as far as HFS(+) is concerned, I consider it as rock solid as they come.

OpenSourceMac's picture
Offline
Joined: 2019 Jan 21

We are NOT talking about file-system corruption. This is metadata corruption. I've transferred this system between 4 different hard-drives and the problem is the same (and completely invisible to Fsck). But OS9 relies heavily on breadcrumbs left on B-Trees (as well as the Desktop file). Very often simply dragging your files to a new drive can fix the problem - the issue in that scenario, is you loose aliases and symlinks which is a bit of a hassle requiring a lot more work to get apps to see their prefs and such. Fortunately, CCC preserves these.

Sadly, most disk utilities rely on the journal too much, which OS9 doesn't really use the way OSX does.

m68k's picture
Offline
Joined: 2016 Dec 30

I can only talk about MacOS up until 8.1 and there I never had *any* such problems. Just the opposite, I mishandled my system disk quite often - mostly by accident - and never suffered any lasting consequences.

So this would have to be an OS9 specific issue.

Jatoba's picture
Offline
Joined: 2018 Apr 16

To my knowledge, the issues described happen with some uses of Mac OS X combined with the original Mac OS within the same computer or hard disk. Someone at MacOS9Lives theorized the B-Tree error is related to using Spotlight (introduced in Mac OS X 10.4 Tiger) and Time Machine (introduced in Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard) on a disc with a Mac OS system. It's an issue with overall Mac OS. If anything, disc issues are the least prone under Mac OS 9 (9.1 ~ 9.2.2) than any earlier version because an MMU is mandatory (and the reason SheepShaver doesn't go beyond 9.0.4).

Personally, I never had a disc issue under Mac OS 9.2.2. I even use a journaled HFS+ partition (HFS+ didn't have journaling before X) with Mac OS 9 on a 512 GB SSD, which shouldn't be supported since I think the journal gets ignored, yet there's never been an issue. (I keep all system files on a separate, pure HFS+ partition, though.)

Nonetheless, no matter what system, one should always have robust read-only backups around... (I.e.: Non-LTH BD-Rs.)

OpenSourceMac's picture
Offline
Joined: 2019 Jan 21

Yep. I've read this too. Also, sharing a drive between the two systems was considered by Apple to be the number 1 reason for .DS_store file corruptions in OSX (messed-up icons).

The actual data in Classic Mac OS (barring file forks), is absurdly robust. This is how you can drag-copy it and have it work. But the "Setteling-in" to the Drive often leaves a lot of debris that cannot be easily removed or repaired, should something go wrong (like forced restarts). And OS9 - probably because of Classic is a bit flaky at times (Finder Crashes and the like) - requiring said forced restarts. This is why Apple installed the automatic Check Disk after a crash, but sadly, it often doesn't fix these type of issues.

Another really good thing to do from time to time, to keep the system happy is to refresh the "OS 9" drivers from Disk Setup. It takes seconds and doesn't harm your Data at all (just rewrites the small extra-partitions OS9 requires). This, of course is done on a wipe/reinstall, but OSX Disk Utility, but at times, that isn't necessary.

m68k's picture
Offline
Joined: 2016 Dec 30

The more I read the more I wonder, for 8.1 seems to handle itself a lot more robust than 9.x
Normally system stabillity is supposed to increase with a major version uprade - at least outside of the Windoze world.

Jatoba's picture
Offline
Joined: 2018 Apr 16

I humbly do not know of even a single instance Mac OS 8.x (and earlier) is at all more robust than 9.x (particularly 9.2 ~ 9.2.2). Just the opposite, in fact. However, I'm more than willing to hear about and see examples of it, if there's anything out there.

WhosIt.There's picture
Offline
Joined: 2014 Aug 23

In all my years of Apple use, from the the early Apple II days, I've never had nor seen any major problems with the so-called "bad" versions of MacOS. Any problems I did have were almost always traceable to to the awful programming by likes of Adobe and Microsoft (Adobe's bazillion library files scattered everywhere) or a game hitting directly on the hardware. The OS itself was fine.

m68k's picture
Offline
Joined: 2016 Dec 30

Well that leaves a problem to be resolved by a genius from another dimension: Since I never experienced *any* of the systemic problems being described here - nor have I ever read about them on the hundreds of MacOS 8 related pages I scoured over the years - I just can not square my personal MacOS experience with the one from this thread.

I became a retro Mac Fanboy the very moment I started using MacOS 8.0 - and never found a reason to regret it.

OpenSourceMac's picture
Offline
Joined: 2019 Jan 21

I used to maintain 15 G4 workstations and both there and at the college I graduated from that had 20, there was a common thread - OS9 was inferior to OS8. But if you've not had that experience - I'm happy for you - it's almost certainly due to faulty extensions, but that doesn't change that for a lot of professional uses, it just didn't work as well. Our old Grey G3s just never needed anything - they just worked perfectly until they were retired. Our G4s needed to be rebuilt every year they were used (mostly image scanning and web-design work).

Jatoba's picture
Offline
Joined: 2018 Apr 16

This raises many important questions. For instance:

- How many of those machines were fully updated to 9.2.2? Latest extensions etc. used?
- How many were installed with 8.6?
- Could the students / other users modify the system folder, use internet etc.?
- Was Mac OS 8.6 installed for as long a period of time as 9.2.2 machines were?
- Was Mac OS X used in conjuction with 8.6, just as well as 9.2.2? (Especially Tiger & Leo)

Would it be possible to provide us with more information? As it stands, this is filled with variables, making things very arbitrary. For example, we could set up those variables to create hypothetical scenarios and make claims such as:

- The perceived "OS 9" problems were rather with 9.0.x;
- Mac OS X got used in conjunction only with 9, and not 8.6;
- The OS 8.6 machines were used for a far lesser period of time, thus not putting it to the test as much as 9;
- 3rd party apps crashing the system without any of it being the system's fault, yet blame is pinned on the system all the same (Sounds like the case, when you said "it's almost certainly due to faulty extensions");
- 3rd party apps that crash both 8.6 and 9 were only tested against 9.

Etc..

Now, I finally might as well provide arguments of the contrary...

MacTron from MacOS9Lives, a very thorough Mac OS user that only cares about running the best Mac OS system possible regardless of version numbers, tested and confirmed the following:
- 9.0.x is buggier and slower than 8.6;
- 9.1 is more stable due to bug fixes (and the use of MMU), but still slower than 8.6 (except for switching tasks, as that only became PPC native with 9.1);
- 9.2.2 is more stable and even faster than 8.6 (although negligibly, with either system having a slight edge over the other, OS 9.2.2 slightly more often so).

And I personally would like to add:
- All OS 9 releases have much bigger software compatibility than 8.6, particularly 9.2.2;
- Mac OS 8.6 "was not designed to run with AltiVec" and the "nanokernel does not have the full Altivec support in it", according to René Vega, one of the main Mac OS kernel developers during Mac OS 8 & 9 eras.

For 8.6 vs. 9.2.2, MacTron used the exact same extensions (safe for very few exceptions which 8.6 required slightly older versions of), machine and machine configuration (G4 Sawtooth + ideal Mac OS ROM for each system), leaving both systems as optimized as they could possibly be with current knowledge. For anyone doubting his results and conclusions, here are the extensions side-by-side, which I believe may be obtained from here (login required), in order to repeat the tests:

So when using the words "superior" or "inferior", be it in stability/robustness/reliability, speed, system features, hardware features or software compatibility, OS 9 is clearly superior. Very specific apps will always require a very specific system and/or hardware, but that is the general situation. After much research, it seems all the love 8.6 got was because 9 had a buggy and incompatible start, and although much improved, even after 9.2.2 came, not everything was yet perfect until later extension updates arrived (many of which also greatly benefitted 8.6).

On a personal note, I grew up with System 7.5.5 ~ Mac OS 9.1 with some all-in-one PPC Mac bought in 1995, with a 2 GB drive installed, which was constantly used until 2005, without any problems. Mac OS 9.1 by far was its longest-running system. The 2 GB drive never had to be reformatted after installing 9.1, even though 6 different people used it during all of those years, from kids to adults. So that's something, too.

OpenSourceMac's picture
Offline
Joined: 2019 Jan 21

At our college, I used 8.6 for over 3 years on B&W G3s with solid performance. The Lab maintenance guy would only have, at most one machine down for service at any one time.

We switched to G4 Quicksilvers running 9.1 and all hell broke loose. At no point during the last 2 years I was there, were there less than 5 machines down, and not working. It got to a point that most students were forced to have their own machines because there were not enough to go around. The afore-mentioned maintenance guy (also the Graphic Interface teacher), stayed on his G3 iMac until I graduated.

Later, when I was maintaining these machines, the G4's (running 9.2 by then) needed to be rebuilt, or "Disk Warriored" at least every other month.

There is a chance this was a poor interaction between G4 systems and OS9, but all I can say was the old Beige systems running 8.6 (for our Fuji Pictrography printer, and Alto Film Recorder), worked flawlessly until they were retired (never had to do anything to them). Further, the Boss staid on his Beige G3 until upgrading to a G5.

Jatoba's picture
Offline
Joined: 2018 Apr 16

@m68k
If you share that Mac OS 8.0/8.1 disc with a Mac OS X install with Tiger/Leo and start using Spotlight and Time Machine, you'll be bound to encounter even more radical errors, as those systems are even less prepared to coexist with anything else. System-wise, there is really nothing special about those particular versions of the Mac OS system, both in the good and the bad. Like @WhosIt.There indicated, all Mac OS versions work really well on their own. So well, in fact, that 3rd party apps have all the freedom and power to screw all of them over if told to.

With that said, I never had any such issues with my Macs, from PPC 7.5.5 to 9.2.2. (Even with OS X thrown in next to 9.2.2.)

Programs crashing Macs, though? Easy. Try running Gauntlet on 68k 7.5.5 or, even less compatible yet, 8.0/8.1 with Basilisk ][. Shall we blame those systems, too, and call System 6 "more robust" while at it? Wink

cbone's picture
Offline
Joined: 2011 Sep 17

My personal experience has been that some things just don't mesh well under emulation while others have no issues.

But every single Mac scenario is (typically) different: your Mac's ROM file, your extension set, your hardware configuration (this was especially true in the SCSI days), your networking setup, your INIT sequence, and sometimes changes due to OS updates, or OS crashes that would have a domino-effect on everything else: programs clashing with something else, be it a particular OS version, extension/extension set or simply other programs. Even fonts and/or font utilities would be the source of trouble with a particular extension or program.

Sometimes Apple would patch something for big companies like Adobe or Microsoft, but more often than not, the little developers would have to explain that their shareware was malfunctioning because something broke in a particular OS update and that the Apple would need to patch the system for their software to work properly or at all.

For some, they simply ran the perfect collection of software and hardware, so they never experienced much or any trouble at all, even though issues existed and were quite real for those who set up and ran their Macs a certain way. This was especially true for the media-production companies I worked with: newspapers, magazines and even freelance designers, architecture firms and law offices, this was in the System 7.x period. Finding workarounds seemed hit-or-miss because of quirky technical issues. I recalled an interesting issue once at an agency involving a SCSI chain issue that affected or was affected by a font conflict to where their networked printers were having trouble printing correctly under certain dtp or illustration programs like Quark, Aldus Freehand or Illustrator.

WhosIt.There's picture
Offline
Joined: 2014 Aug 23

There is no "Delete immediately" option for root-level items in CCC that I can find (at least not in the current version). There is an option for "Protect root-level items on the destination", which is already off, but still doesn't restore the custom icon.

Personally I used OS 9 for many many years before finally switching over to OS X 10.2 on my beige G3 PowerMac, as well as numerous client's Macs, and never came across any such disk issues simply occurring on a healthy drive. If it "fixes" the problem for you, then that's great, but I wouldn't suggest relying on it ... not to mention having to continually revert to a CCC backup is annoying at best.

OpenSourceMac's picture
Offline
Joined: 2019 Jan 21

It's on the first page of clone options at the top. I just recopied the now fixed system to a disk image and the icon was not lost.

WhosIt.There's picture
Offline
Joined: 2014 Aug 23

Maybe in the old version of CCC it is, but in the current version I'm using now with High Sierra it isn't, so the custom icon gets lost.

When I was using OS 9 (for nearly 20 years before I had to upgrade to a then-already-ancient MacOS X 10.2) I used a simple synching app to do backups - that copied files quicker than Finder.

OpenSourceMac's picture
Offline
Joined: 2019 Jan 21

That might be - this version is really old. I suspect with CCC they are thinking much more about Core-Storage than File Forks and oldschool stuff. They still have a great product though. Set up a server last year for a local realestate outfit and when someone deleted their Dropbox folder (inadvertently deleting the entire company's files ;0p, the backups worked perfectly (2TB was back up within the day)). We set it up to with an OWC raid, mirrored and split into two volumes so one backup occurred daily and the other weekly). For the price beats the heck out of higher-priced server apps.

OpenSourceMac's picture
Offline
Joined: 2019 Jan 21

P.S. For anyone who isn't interested in try this - DON'T. It is amazing how hostile people in this group are toward any new ideas or work-arounds. I've been Professionally maintaining Mac equipment for both corporate employers and private customers for 17 years. If your hearsay and anecdotal info is enough for you - fine, but for people who need actual solutions, let them try it. At worst it won't work, at best it will.

"People who say it can't be done should not interrupt those who are doing
it."
- George Bernard Shaw

Jatoba's picture
Offline
Joined: 2018 Apr 16

@OpenSourceMac

I'd thankfully accept an uploaded CCC Shareware 3.4.7, as well as other versions! (Assuming a page doesn't yet exist, that is.)

It is amazing how hostile people in this group are toward any new ideas or work-arounds.

What group would that be? From context, it sounds as if you meant the people from this thread, but I figure you must mean some other group, because otherwise it'd be quite a misunderstanding.

With that said, I love that quote. Smile It's perfect!

OpenSourceMac's picture
Offline
Joined: 2019 Jan 21

Well Said!

But seriously, the garden has a lot of thorns, as well as a lot of flowers! One of the biggest problems with the Mac 'Culture' is that most Mac users are notoriously uninterested in the tech side of it in favor of good design (the new "Iron Sky" movie totally nails the elitism problem in mainstream Apple culture). And applying design principles to engineering problems is often very problematic and ineffective. This is why Apple's success is at least as much due to Wozniak's traditional computer wisdom as Job's "New Vision".

The tool that works is the one you need - even if it goes contrary to Cupertino's dogma. A lot of people here feel there is one way of doing things, and that nothing could "never be as simple as that", but computers are all about problem solving, not ego-hedging or tribalism.

This is often the trouble with enlightenment, it's own brilliance is zero-sum and can't help but compare itself others.

Jatoba's picture
Offline
Joined: 2018 Apr 16

That's an interesting subject, although I would be guilty of deviating the thread from its original subject if I also add my own 2 cents to it. Well, if it looks like it will keep going on, we can always create a new thread later. Smile

The way I see it, that group description you gave fits best with the modern Apple gadgets community (most of which popped up from the success of iPhones and the like) and with those who purchase the latest Apple products as some weird social status statement (regardless of actual product quality or lack thereof, both in hardware and software). The vast majority of such people I have come across were in places like the non-PowerPC MacRumors forum (Intel forum, basically), to the point it got so bad, that early Intel Mac users had to resort to and take shelter in the PowerPC forum for troubleshooting their older Intel Macs, even though an Intel section is right there (sounds like an absolute made-up joke, but it's real).

That aside, every place will have its issues (as in, any human community/group, any time, anywhere), but out of all Mac-centric communities I have participated in, by far I believe the Garden's to be the nicest. I personally haven't noticed instances of people here acting in the way we are discussing. And certainly not in this thread! If anything, I'm inclined to believe it's rather an issue in our perception of the used words. (Text-only communication is subject to a lot of communication noise. Which is why I'm usually so verbose.)

As for tribalism, I think it's not really bad, as long as there's no overdose of it and people can "interact with the other tribes" well enough. Smile

cbone's picture
Offline
Joined: 2011 Sep 17

I so get what you're saying, OSM! Smile

Would you say that with the arrival of OS X, the OS became more rigid, like a polished Linux? It brought many amazing new and evolved innovations, apps and sleek hardware, but that original Mac feel and ability to tinker and personalize it got lost and hasn't been quite the same since.

They were simpler times: the adventure of having the option to boldly try out new things, hack a bit with ResEdit, crashing here and there, then working things out under the hood: it was all your choice and all of that was fun and exciting! Yet with all that going on, everything just worked.

Almost forgot MUGs, where shareware and a little extra were exchanged via sneakerware floppies: it was a cool time to be part of the new Mac-culture in Cupertino and beyond. Eventually Craigslist, AOL's Mac shareware and AIM took over on dial-up, and with instant messaging, you didn't have to leave the house anymore. I was still a young adult, so the whole experience was amazing for me back then; it only hurt that Macs were so expensive to own!

OpenSourceMac's picture
Offline
Joined: 2019 Jan 21

For the longest time I would have understood it, as the Panther/Tiger days were really dialed-in (especially compared to Windows Vista), and there was a feeling that maybe we should just "Trust Steve", but there have also been a lot of problems, and OS9 really is a good deal less stable than say 8.6, but without serious efforts, it's all that will run on an MDD, so I have to find work-arounds. Cross-platform thinking (outside of the box), brings a lot to the mix. There are a lot of overlaps that we don't always see. All that I ask is that people suspend disbelief until they try something OR see some evidence that it doesn't work before firmly asserting it can't, but over the last 10 years I've been on this site, there is a constant "current" of naysaying on any non-standard concepts.

A while back I published an article on the value of not putting an entire Mac system on SSD (because of the lack of Trim), but instead moving Virtual Memory to a smaller SSD (to take advantage of high-speed VM paging - essentially limitless RAM, without the risk of data-loss that SSDs are plagued with, and the burden of slow-down during block reallocation after file-delete, and no less than 3 persons on the discussion said that the makers of SSDs were lying about how block relocation works, and that the measured performance increases I had, couldn't possibly be true. I feel like Galileo dealing with the Medieval Catholic church sharing any good ideas here.

Saying something doesn't make it so, but also, because someone else says it doesn't make it false. Facts speak for themselves, and if someone is unwilling/able to test a theory, it serves no purpose to insist either way.

cbone's picture
Offline
Joined: 2011 Sep 17

See, I see so much value in the take away of your article! Did you write in the MG?

I often wondered about the function of SSDs on older systems. A PB 2400c I bought was outfitted with a SSD, which gives an old OS a new technology to work with. I'm sure the OS is not using the drive very efficiently; I avoid deleting too many things. It's been a while since I jumped on it, but I can't recall if VM is on, which might also affect the drive I believe.

I read once about using a CF card on a Powerbook's PCMCIA for VM RAM. Would that qualify as a type of smaller 'SSD', in my case a flash card, that you're recommending in your article? My challenge would then be to find a PCMCIA card reader that would work with my 1gb CF card and the Powerbook's PCMCIA slot.

I think it has a total of 80mb of RAM, so a good amount of my card's space would remain unused. Perhaps possibly partitioning to allow the VM to run on a specific area on the card, leaving the rest of it untouched. My thought would be that over time, say a span of a year, the next 80mb of space can be used for VM as a way of extending the lifespan of the CF. I have no clue on how to spare the SSD inside my 2400c from whatever havoc OS9 does to it.

Unfortunately my hardware knowledge is worse than my software knowledge, which is just good enough to get me into trouble!

Jatoba's picture
Offline
Joined: 2018 Apr 16

Many interesting mini-subjects there! Hopefully it's alright if I ramble on about them a bit?

Baseless naysaying will be out there anywhere anytime for all subjects. But was that article published in the Garden? We don't know if those naysayers were MG members, right? Looking at the Garden's history, indeed there used to be, more commonly, people making irrational statements, but there's no denying the MG community greatly matured since. I'm actually glad I wasn't there back during, say, 2013, but rather 2019+. (Major props to everyone from back then who made the Garden into what it is today!)

Incidentally, stability-wise, much like me discussing robustness above, I haven't seen anything that indicates Mac OS 8.6 is any stabler than, at least, 9.1 and 9.2.x. Again, due to the lack of mandatory MMU usage, I have seen only the contrary being true. (Again, examples of the opposite are most welcome.)

Now, about SSDs... There's a lot to be said there!

Regarding commenters on your article, I'm not sure what nonsense some of them might have said (I'd appreciate a link to the article!), but I can personally say that there's a quite significant speed/performance difference between using an SSD and using RAM, because I actually put Classilla 9.3.3 on both an SSD and on a RAM Disk, including the browser cache, and compared the two, so using an SSD as VM for "limitless RAM" is kinda really pushing it. Aside from RAM itself being much faster, and PATA/SATA connections being a huge overhead for SSDs, disc I/O goes unused, and other tasks that might require the disc I/O will be free to use it, as a bonus.

About the lack of TRIM, in practice, all I could find after much research was that it boils down to the user having to leave even more unused space before there's a performance (and disc longevity) hit. Meaning that instead of, say, always making sure you leave 10% of your disc free, it should be 20% or more, for an 1 TB SSD (the bigger the capacity, the bigger the proportion). I'm not sure how block reallocation really works, other than that it greatly benefits from unused space to move things around and discard garbage data in some way, and that with TRIM, it will need less of said space.

There's still one more thing that would make me concerned: using an SSD as virtual memory means a very big increase in write operations. All SSD benchmarking tests I have seen everywhere had one thing in common: write operations are what kill an SSD over the years, while read operations alone would make the SSD last indefinitely. The idea of using VM cache sounds really interesting and smart, but AFAIK, this would definitely considerably reduce the SSD's life.

All I know is that my 512 GB SSD is still doing great since 2018 under Mac OS 9.2.2 on a Mac mini G4. Smile Hundreds of gigs used with hundreds of thousands of files, big and small, with lots of write and read operations going on constantly (I am archiving software all the time, after all).

If you have had a different SSD experience under various systems, I'd be more than interested in hearing about it. The more we know, the better.

OpenSourceMac's picture
Offline
Joined: 2019 Jan 21

There is a lot there that agrees with my experience and research, but as for IDE bandwidth, I don't get that point. Because even if you set a second spinning drive as VM, it would double connection speed as your primary drive wouldn't have to be doing double-duty. My system, uses a SATA PCI card and in practice can page memory in and out at bus speed. RAM on an MDD is 3X bus speed, so there is some drop-off (Would actually be "Limitless RAM" in a Digital Audio G4 - that uses 1XBus RAM Speed, but stay with me here). At one point, as a test, I opened two separate 9000x7000 pixel images in Photoshop, and doubled them in size by 10% increments, and then reversed the process, WHILE also running TenFourFox with 60 tabs open and went back and fourth between refreshing pages and making Photoshop jump between history states and it was TOTALLY STABLE, and took no more then 1/2 second to shift gears inbetween both processes. iStatPro said I had paiged 32GB to VM. If that isn't a big RAM Perk, than I don't know what is. Also, this SSD is a Sandforce 250GB, that I only have a very small, second Tiger build on for recovery purposes (about 5GB), so the entire thing is available for paging.

In my tests of two Sandforce, (autotrimming) SSDs, garbage collection (reallocating blocks from deleted files) is essentially unnoticeable until the drive reaches 50% full. Then beach balls become increasingly common do to Photoshop scratch, Web-Browsing paging and so forth. OS9 wouldn't really have a problem with this (if you had 1.5GB of RAM) because it won't page at all, and disables VM - can only address 1.5GB of RAM in total, but for OSX, this is a huge perk in system performance. But the biggest issue with SSDs (according to the manufacturers), is that consumer SSDs all share multiple layers of data on the same blocks, and if you delete a file that shares a block (for some reason I don't get), the other non-deleted contents must be moved to new blocks, because the entire block must be freed if even one string of data, (out of 4 or 5) is deleted. During the time that data being kept is being moved, it is inaccessible by whatever file or app it is a part of. In practice this happens very fast, but as room gets low, it slows down drastically, and very often after say a night of video-conversions or other heavy usage, I would restart and the system would set at the bluescreen for as long as 10 minutes before the login window would come up. THIS ALL ENDED when I put just VM on that SSD, but in practice I have all the performance gains in usage (if not launch speed).

As for the causes of SSD failures, it is true that memory controllers often fail before drives reach tangible levels of block-loss, but if your entire system is on the SSD, in OSX, you are doing both types of damage simultaneously (file writing and paging) and probably a lot more often to the same blocks - so burning up both the block-life AND the memory controller. In my concept, you only are paging and on a big drive, no more than 1/2 could ever even be theoretically used - so the drive should last indefinitely. Most importantly, if it doesn't, you don't loose all your data in a 'ball of fire' as one often does when an SSD fails.

Jatoba's picture
Offline
Joined: 2018 Apr 16

That was a fascinating read. Shock That's a lot of food for thought!

m68k's picture
Offline
Joined: 2016 Dec 30

Quote: "A lot of people here feel there is one way of doing things, and that nothing could "never be as simple as that", but computers are all about problem solving, not ego-hedging or tribalism."

Leaves me speechless .... Shock
Which is probably for the better.

capt_chuckl3s's picture
Offline
Joined: 2019 Sep 17

I'm really glad that someone brought the subject of disk repair up. I've experienced data corruption and lost drives in Windows countless times because majority of Manufacturers of telemetry systems design their applications to run on Windows, that's just the nature of working with medical equipment. While I haven't really experienced data corruption or lost drives on a Mac level, it doesn't mean that it won't happen and I really don't want to lose on any of my Macs if I can help. I'm guessing that Disk Warrior II is a disk repair app if for Mac OS 9, so if you're having issues with it, what would you suggest I use if i had to repair a HDD on my PowerMac G4?

As far as elitism among this group, I have to testify from my experiences with MG, there's hardly many users here that have that classic "apple fanboy" elitism. I'm very much a newbie when it comes to anything Mac or retro Mac related, I've only started playing with Macs almost three years ago. When I joined this group and asked the most newbie of questions (almost down to "what is a mouse" kind of questions), they have been nothing but courteous and polite when answering them. i don't think i could have had a better experience with another old Mac related website.

OpenSourceMac's picture
Offline
Joined: 2019 Jan 21

Your right - it has improved a lot in the last few years.

The post specifically deals with OS9 and how non-data files (hidden metadata mostly) can make the system unbootable and unusable and it used to be that Disk Warrior 2 (STILL $90) was the only really good app for fixing all of this without total reinstall. As stated, you often can drag-copy your system to a new drive and fix it also, but apps that use specific addressing to find prefs and such get really snotty and have to be re-aimed - which is also a pain (a REALLY big pain for aliases).

I was just stating that Carbon Copy worked well because it can copy to a new drive, but still keep those file linkages. Not sure how it does it, but I'm GLAD it can. I've heard in the past that some people have successfully used CCC to clone Windows hard drives!

As for OSX - it's simple. Disk utility does a fine job. That jump Apple made to Unix base was a good idea. Just always make sure to have backups (and guess what, that's what CCC was originally designed to do - so I guess it has your back there too! :0)

capt_chuckl3s's picture
Offline
Joined: 2019 Sep 17

As i do have a Mac that runs Mac OS 9.2.2, would it best to get a copy of CC? I thought about getting a slightly bigger HD for the PowerMac G4 in the future, and it would be pretty awesome to be able to clone everything from the 10 GB drive it has to a new drive.

And trust me, I knew that OS X is Unix based Wink. I was giddy with joy when I found out all those commands like sudo, touch, and ifconfig that I learned in Linux classes worked on my first MacBook.

OpenSourceMac's picture
Offline
Joined: 2019 Jan 21

All I can say is after using OS8/9 for over 6 years professionally and working with it casually 15 years after that, this is the easiest move I've ever had. Will post this version of CCC tonight (check tomorrow for the link). I don't have the manual, or read me, as I downloaded it over 10 years ago, but it's easy to use.

You will just need Tiger to run CCC from to move your classic system.

cbone's picture
Offline
Joined: 2011 Sep 17

I do have a funny story to add to the irony of the current pricing for DiskWarrior's legacy versions:

I remember getting a MacWorld issue by mail that had an offer for a full copy of DiskWarrior 2 with shipping at no-cost whatsoever. I happily mailed my request to them and within a couple of weeks I received a floppy disk with DW in an envelope with an offer to get the next version, due to be release within a month's time, at a discount, I think the offer was for 50% off the retail price. I made a backup of my free copy of my DW disk and used it to troubleshoot all my 68k Macs at the time. The only thing it could not repair were HFS+ volumes, but their 'no-strings' offer was a really nice gesture, surely a part of their marketing strategy, but nonetheless something I genuinely appreciated from Alsoft at the time.

OpenSourceMac's picture
Offline
Joined: 2019 Jan 21

Before OSX (and the ability to repair from outside the system), there was nothing like it. I worked at a massive commercial photo studio with 15 Mac Workstations and $40,000 drum-scanners and a day rebuilding a machine was a huge loss in productivity at the time. They truly were lifesavers then. That was a pretty remarkable offer. Kinda' like how Windows 10 is basically Free now to get everyone hooked!

WhosIt.There's picture
Offline
Joined: 2014 Aug 23

I got quite a few programs that way via magazine cover disks / CDs. They weren't the very latest versions, but they worked and they were free - I got a free copy of ColorIt! that way that I continued using for years as a much simpler alternative to Photoshop. Smile

It still happens from time to time now too with OS X apps, although I haven't seen any of the major ones doing it in a while.

You can also get bundle offers from places like of Macworld that give you a pile of apps, often there's one or two useful ones along with a pile of useless rubbish, but it can still work out cheaper than buying the good apps individually.

sfp1954's picture
Offline
Joined: 2013 Dec 29

I've never needed to "clone" a Classic only drive.
I just init the new drive.
Drag the entire old drive onto the new drive and then select "All" and drag everything in the folder created by the copy to the desktop. It's never given me an issue.

My first rule with classic is NEVER use virtual memory.
I've never found an application that actually requires it if you have plenty of actual RAM.

All my classic macs (about a dozen) are running solid state of some kind.
The only one that seems difficult to set up is the Lombard.

How about TechTool Pro for Classic? I've never tried it.

m68k's picture
Offline
Joined: 2016 Dec 30

I use TechTools Pro 3.0.6 for 68k and it works great. It fully supports HFS and HFS+. Only problem is the initial nag screen, because it can't believe two decades went by w/o an upgrade being available.