Powermac supported devices
  • Yokemate of Keyboards
    Yokemate of Keyboards
    Andreas_Wolf
    Posts: 11707 from 2003/5/22
    From: Germany
    > is it true that there won't be onboard sound support for Powermac 3,1 - 3,3 ?

    I guess if it wasn't true then pega-1 wouldn't have claimed it :-)
  • »30.08.10 - 08:53
    Profile
  • Priest of the Order of the Butterfly
    Priest of the Order of the Butterfly
    analogkid
    Posts: 626 from 2004/11/3
    From: near myself
    Seems that i've overread this part of Franks statement. Thanks for showing it up again.
  • »30.08.10 - 09:05
    Profile
  • Jim
  • Yokemate of Keyboards
    Yokemate of Keyboards
    Jim
    Posts: 4967 from 2009/1/28
    From: Delaware, USA
    Edited to keep me from feeling too stupid. Sorry.

    [ Edited by Jim on 2010/8/31 2:24 ]
    "Never attribute to malice what can more readily explained by incompetence"
  • »30.08.10 - 19:15
    Profile
  • Yokemate of Keyboards
    Yokemate of Keyboards
    Andreas_Wolf
    Posts: 11707 from 2003/5/22
    From: Germany
    > That might be ideal for 7400 owners, but the work required would be
    > even greater than PCI G4 Powermac (so it doesn't seem remotely likely).

    Huh? PowerMac3,1 to PowerMac3,3 *do have* MPC7400.

    http://www.everymac.com/ultimate-mac-lookup/?search_keywords=PowerMac3,1
    http://www.everymac.com/ultimate-mac-lookup/?search_keywords=PowerMac3,3
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_Mac_G4#Original_models

    > Doesn't the 7400 forego Altivec instructions?

    No, of course not.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PowerPC_G4#Design
    http://www.freescale.com/files/32bit/doc/ref_manual/MPC7400UM.pdf
    http://www.freescale.com/files/32bit/doc/data_sheet/MPC7400TS.pdf
    http://www.freescale.com/files/32bit/doc/data_sheet/MPC7400EC.pdf
  • »30.08.10 - 19:37
    Profile
  • Priest of the Order of the Butterfly
    Priest of the Order of the Butterfly
    analogkid
    Posts: 626 from 2004/11/3
    From: near myself
    @Andreas_Wolf

    >Huh? PowerMac3,1 to PowerMac3,3 *do have* MPC7400.

    If I recognise it correctly, the MPC7410 used in the 466 and 533 Mhz versions of Powermac 3,4 (Digital Audio) is "just" a low-power version of the MPC7400, so the differences should be marginal. The MPC7450 seems to be a major overhaul of the earlier G4 cpus.

    [ Edited by analogkid on 2010/8/30 22:09 ]
  • »30.08.10 - 20:09
    Profile
  • Yokemate of Keyboards
    Yokemate of Keyboards
    Andreas_Wolf
    Posts: 11707 from 2003/5/22
    From: Germany
    > If I recognise it correctly, the MPC7410 used in the 466 and 533 Mhz versions of
    > Powermac 3,4 (Digital Audio) is "just" a low-power version of the MPC7400

    Mainly, yes. There are some minor differences other than power usage though.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PowerPC_G4#PowerPC_7410
    http://www.freescale.com/files/32bit/doc/ref_manual/MPC7410UM.pdf (page 85)
    http://www.freescale.com/files/32bit/doc/prod_brief/MPC7410TS.pdf (page 35)
    http://www.freescale.com/files/32bit/doc/data_sheet/MPC7410EC.pdf (page 2)

    > The MPC7450 seems to be a major overhaul of the earlier G4 cpus.

    Exactly, therefore the monikers "G4e" or "G4+".

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PowerPC_G4#PowerPC_7450
    http://www.freescale.com/files/32bit/doc/ref_manual/MPC7450UM.pdf (pages 110 to 112)
    http://www.freescale.com/files/32bit/doc/prod_brief/MPC7450TS.pdf (pages 54 to 56)
    http://www.freescale.com/files/32bit/doc/data_sheet/MPC7450EC.pdf (pages 7 to 9)
  • »30.08.10 - 20:34
    Profile
  • Jim
  • Yokemate of Keyboards
    Yokemate of Keyboards
    Jim
    Posts: 4967 from 2009/1/28
    From: Delaware, USA
    Edited to keep me from feeling too stupid. Sorry.

    [ Edited by Jim on 2010/8/31 2:25 ]
    "Never attribute to malice what can more readily explained by incompetence"
  • »30.08.10 - 21:35
    Profile
  • Yokemate of Keyboards
    Yokemate of Keyboards
    Andreas_Wolf
    Posts: 11707 from 2003/5/22
    From: Germany
    > This would still require the development team to work on additional
    > chipsets/hardware that I doubt they'd want to be troubled with.

    Again, as you seem to have missed my last answer to you: PowerMac3,1 to PowerMac3,3 *do have* MPC7400. And as MorphOS is announced for these machines we can safely assume that the MorphOS Team does want to be troubled with their hardware.

    > Some of the machines that use this Processor even appear to have AGP slots

    Yes, that's the whole point of it in terms of MorphOS. All PowerMac G4 generations with AGP are supposed to be supported (but probably not every model of each generation, see there). I cannot believe that you've forgotten that:

    https://morph.zone/modules/newbb_plus/viewtopic.php?topic_id=6684&forum=11&post_id=75390#75390

    > although I did check what type yet

    We (as in you and me) discussed that at lengths already:

    https://morph.zone/modules/newbb_plus/viewtopic.php?topic_id=7261&forum=11&post_id=75095#75095

    > The PCI slot equipped 7400s could still be useful with a supported PCI graphics card.

    According to the MorphOS Team the PCI based PowerMac G4 generation (PowerMac1,2, "Yikes") will not be supported.

    > I've never considered looking back at the older hardware.

    I think you did, but forgot, which is frightening ;-)

    > There's a lot of systems that could be supported if the developers had the
    > time for them all.

    All PowerMac G4 generations except the very first one are AGP based.
  • »30.08.10 - 22:44
    Profile
  • Jim
  • Yokemate of Keyboards
    Yokemate of Keyboards
    Jim
    Posts: 4967 from 2009/1/28
    From: Delaware, USA
    Actually, I pretty much skipped over early G4 Macs. I had some friends using G3s, but by the time the first G4s staring to hit the market, I'd pretty much ignored Mac.

    I moved from the 68K to X86 hardware. PowerPC never really interested me as Apple was the only major player selling boxes with PPCs in them to the consumer. I've got to admit that I've always discounted Apple because I simply am not fond of the management.

    Right now, I probably know more about the e600 than I do about G3 and G4s. Sorry about the hasty posts. If I'd spent more time researching my information, I wouldn't have made the mistakes you've pointed out.

    [ Edited by Jim on 2010/8/31 2:26 ]
    "Never attribute to malice what can more readily explained by incompetence"
  • »31.08.10 - 00:02
    Profile
  • Priest of the Order of the Butterfly
    Priest of the Order of the Butterfly
    analogkid
    Posts: 626 from 2004/11/3
    From: near myself
    @Andreas_Wolf

    > Yes, that's the whole point of it in terms of MorphOS. All PowerMac G4 generations with AGP are supposed to be supported (but probably not every model of each generation

    For my understanding, it's just a matter of the used CPU. If it couldn't be managed to get the 7400 running, a cpu upgrade should help. As pega-1 pointed out in one of your given links, the support of Powermac 3,1 to Powermac 3,3 doesn't mean that it is supported with its original cpus. But I'm sure you know this :)
  • »31.08.10 - 05:33
    Profile
  • Yokemate of Keyboards
    Yokemate of Keyboards
    Andreas_Wolf
    Posts: 11707 from 2003/5/22
    From: Germany
    > For my understanding, it's just a matter of the used CPU. If it couldn't be managed to get
    > the 7400 running, a cpu upgrade should help. As pega-1 pointed out in one of your given
    > links, the support of Powermac 3,1 to Powermac 3,3 doesn't mean that it is supported with
    > its original cpus.

    I think you misunderstood what he wrote. Here's the relevant part:

    "...PowerMac G4 support including models PowerMac3,1 to PowerMac3,6 with the requirement of [...] at least a 500MHz cpu card. The cpu part is still a bit open since we don't have machines with < 1GHz G4 CPUs for testing really and there are some known problems for the original low end 350/400/450/466MHz cards found in PowerMac3,1 to PowerMac3,4"

    So it's seemingly not a matter of the type of MPC74xx (MPC7400 or MPC7410 or whatever) but a matter of the clocking, for whatever reason which pega-1 didn't explain. At least that's how I've understood his statement. In detail this would mean:

    PowerMac1,2 (MPC7400):
    - not supported: 350 and 400 MHz
    - supported: none

    PowerMac3,1 (MPC7400):
    - not supported: 350, 400 and 450 MHz
    - supported: 500 MHz

    PowerMac3,3 (MPC7400):
    - not supported: 400 and 450 MHz
    - supported: 500 MHz

    PowerMac3,4 (MPC7410):
    - not supported: 466 MHz
    - supported: 533 MHz (as well as MPC7450 at 667 and 733 MHz)

    PowerMac3,5 and PowerMac3,6 (MPC7450 and MPC7455(B)):
    - not supported: none
    - supported: all
  • »31.08.10 - 09:48
    Profile
  • Priest of the Order of the Butterfly
    Priest of the Order of the Butterfly
    boot_wb
    Posts: 874 from 2007/4/9
    From: Kingston upon ...
    Quote:


    Andreas_Wolf wrote:
    I think you misunderstood what he wrote. Here's the relevant part:

    "...PowerMac G4 support including models PowerMac3,1 to PowerMac3,6 with the requirement of [...] at least a 500MHz cpu card. The cpu part is still a bit open since we don't have machines with < 1GHz G4 CPUs for testing really and there are some known problems for the original low end 350/400/450/466MHz cards found in PowerMac3,1 to PowerMac3,4"

    So it's seemingly not a matter of the type of MPC74xx (MPC7400 or MPC7410 or whatever) but a matter of the clocking, for whatever reason which pega-1 didn't explain. At least that's how I've understood his statement. In detail this would mean:

    PowerMac1,2 (MPC7400):
    - not supported: 350 and 400 MHz
    - supported: none

    PowerMac3,1 (MPC7400):
    - not supported: 350, 400 and 450 MHz
    - supported: 500 MHz

    PowerMac3,3 (MPC7400):
    - not supported: 400 and 450 MHz
    - supported: 500 MHz

    PowerMac3,4 (MPC7410):
    - not supported: 466 MHz
    - supported: 533 MHz (as well as MPC7450 at 667 and 733 MHz)

    PowerMac3,5 and PowerMac3,6 (MPC7450 and MPC7455(B)):
    - not supported: none
    - supported: all


    Thanks for that missing info Andreas, I've consolidated it into the OP.
    www.hullchimneyservices.co.uk

    UI: Powerbook 5,6 (1.67GHz, 128MB VRam): OS3.1, OSX 10.5.8
    HTPC: Mac Mini G4 (1,5GHz, 64MB VRam): OS3.1 (ZVNC)
    Audiophile: Efika 5200b (SB Audigy): OS3.1 (VNC + Virtual Monitor)

    Windows free since 2011!
  • »31.08.10 - 10:59
    Profile Visit Website
  • Priest of the Order of the Butterfly
    Priest of the Order of the Butterfly
    analogkid
    Posts: 626 from 2004/11/3
    From: near myself
    @Andreas_Wolf:
    < I think you misunderstood what he wrote. Here's the relevant part:

    And what about 3rd-party cpu upgrades? As far as I've heard Powermac support is also tested on a Powermac 3,1 with a cpu upgrade card.

    So, just a example:

    Powermac3,1 - 3,4 (MPC7447a) (many cpu upgrades from Sonnet feature a 7447a)
    supported?



    [ Edited by analogkid on 2010/8/31 13:36 ]
  • »31.08.10 - 11:36
    Profile
  • Yokemate of Keyboards
    Yokemate of Keyboards
    Andreas_Wolf
    Posts: 11707 from 2003/5/22
    From: Germany
    > what about 3rd-party cpu upgrades?

    I really don't know, I've never read any (semi-)official word on this other than that we shouldn't assume that any 3rd party CPU upgrade would be supported.

    > As far as I've heard Powermac support is also tested on a
    > Powermac 3,1 with a cpu upgrade card.

    Nice if it's true. Do you know which CPU card that is specifically? An MPC7448 card would be too much to hope for I guess ;-)

    https://morph.zone/modules/newbb_plus/viewtopic.php?topic_id=6770&forum=3&post_id=69337#69337

    > Powermac3,1 - 3,4 (MPC7447a) (many cpu upgrades from Sonnet feature a 7447a)
    > supported?

    I'm the wrong one to answer this. You should rather ask that to a MorphOS Team member.
  • »31.08.10 - 12:40
    Profile
  • Priest of the Order of the Butterfly
    Priest of the Order of the Butterfly
    analogkid
    Posts: 626 from 2004/11/3
    From: near myself
    @boot_wb:

    Thanks for your fairly complete list of supported Powermac G4 versions. There are some points which I want to annotate.

    "PowerMac3,3:
    --4 x DIMM banks;
    --Supports PC100 SDRAM (Max 1.5GB);
    ----3.3V, 168-pin, unbuffered, non-registered (does not mention non-ECC or non-parity);
    ----Maximum of 16 devices (ie may be double-sided, but no more than 16 chips in total) per DIMM. [4]"

    I think you mean the maximum memory which this model can use, not only the maximum MorphOS can use. Mac OS X can use the full 2 GB of RAM in the PowerMac3,3.

    And some of the older PowerMac 3,1 - 3,5 support only harddrives < 128 GByte on the internal ATA controllers, don't know if it will affect MorphOS.
  • »31.08.10 - 15:18
    Profile
  • Yokemate of Keyboards
    Yokemate of Keyboards
    Andreas_Wolf
    Posts: 11707 from 2003/5/22
    From: Germany
    > I think you mean the maximum memory which this model can use,
    > not only the maximum MorphOS can use. Mac OS X can use the full
    > 2 GB of RAM in the PowerMac3,3.

    I guess that's why his list says "Anecdotally, PowerMac3,1 - PowerMac3,3 may also support 2GB ram" some lines below ;-)
    1.5 GiB is actually what Apple claims as maximum RAM for both the PowerMac3,1 and PowerMac3,3:

    http://support.apple.com/kb/SP123
    http://support.apple.com/kb/SP117

    The fact that they also work with 2 GiB RAM is more or less unofficial. I don't know where boot_wb's "Max 1GB" for the PowerMac3,1 comes from, though.
  • »31.08.10 - 15:45
    Profile
  • Just looking around
    g4QS_redux
    Posts: 9 from 2010/8/25
    From: Germany
    > The fact that they also work with 2 GiB RAM is
    > more or less unofficial. I don't know where
    > boot_wb's "Max 1GB" for the PowerMac3,1 comes
    > from, though.

    Yes, indeed. Unofficial in the sense that several (Macintosh OS) users, including myself[*], have stated that they can operate their early AGP-Macs with 2GB of physical memory when running Mac OS X. Maybe boot_wb got that information from official web sites of the Apple company which have not been updated anymore. Or Apple might not have offered warranty to users who used 512MB memory bars in their early Power Macintosh G4 (AGP) Macs, so they did not intend to encourage them to swap memory bars; something like that might have led to contradictory statements on the internet.

    At the point in time these early G4 Macs were released, in 1999 or something, 512MB bars for these machines were simply not available to average customers; maybe they were still developing at that point in time(?).

    Power Macintosh G4 (PCI) boards are, however, limited to a maximum of 1GB physical memory; the ones MorphOS developers do not support.

    [*] I have just upgraded my Power Macintosh G4 (AGP), 350MHz (i.e. "PowerMac3,1") to the maximum of 2GB. I took three of the four RAM modules required for doing this from my Quicksilver 800. This G4 Mac (350MHz) recognizes the full RAM of 2GB if I use Debian Linux ("Squeeze Testing"), Mac OS X, and even Mac OS 9. I was really surprised that even Mac OS 9 supports 2GB ("1,99GB") if I add the memory bars to this comparatively old G4 model.

    Yet, I am not sure if I will upgrade the hardware components of this Macintosh to 500MHz if this becomes necessary to run MorphOS on it. For I might not dare to do this as I use this machine for productivity purposes. We shall see if it works in a satisfying way when MorphOS 2.6 is released. If it is even possible to run MorphOS on comparatively slow machines like Efika boards, however, I think a processor speed of 350MHz should not be too problematic.

    Btw, I really like boot_wb's list. Thanks for the new information! It has become an extensive overview for people who are interested in running future releases of MorphOS on PowerMac G4 hardware (apart from what is already possible, G4 mini and eMac 1,25). Maybe you want to update this list if MorphOS 2.6 will be released in the future and tell others which PowerMacs G4 it works on? The basis would be user reports, of course.
  • »31.08.10 - 20:47
    Profile
  • Yokemate of Keyboards
    Yokemate of Keyboards
    Andreas_Wolf
    Posts: 11707 from 2003/5/22
    From: Germany
    >> I don't know where boot_wb's "Max 1GB" for the PowerMac3,1 comes from, though.

    > Maybe boot_wb got that information from official web sites of the Apple company

    The 1.5 GiB information, yes (see my links to the official Apple support website), but nowhere on the Apple website can I find the information that PowerMac3,1 supports only 1 GiB maximum.

    > Apple might not have offered warranty to users who used 512MB memory
    > bars in their early Power Macintosh G4 (AGP) Macs, so they did not intend
    > to encourage them to swap memory bars

    According to the official Apple specs for the PowerMac3,1 it (officially) supports as much as 1.5 GiB RAM maximum. Quote from my link: "Min - Max RAM: 64 MB - 1.5 GB".
    With four slots you simply can't get 1.5 GiB in total without using at least two 512 MiB bars.

    > something like that might have led to contradictory statements on the internet.

    Might or might not, yes. But I'd rather have a pointer to an actual and official Apple document which states 1 GiB RAM maximum for PowerMac3,1. That's what I implicitely asked for in the first place.

    > At the point in time these early G4 Macs were released, in 1999 or something,
    > 512MB bars for these machines were simply not available to average customers

    ...which didn't prevent Apple from specifying their PowerMac3,1 (and PowerMac3,3) machines for 1.5 GiB RAM maximum back then, which implies the use of at least two 512 MiB bars. Quote from the official PowerMac3,1 specs I linked to: "RAM Sizes: 32, 64, 128, 256, 512MB".

    > Power Macintosh G4 (PCI) boards are, however, limited to a maximum
    > of 1GB physical memory

    Yes, but that's PowerMac1,2, not PowerMac3,1.

    > If it is even possible to run MorphOS on comparatively slow machines like Efika
    > boards, however, I think a processor speed of 350MHz should not be too problematic.

    I doubt it's the performance or MHz per se that is the problem with the sub-500 MHz models. Maybe pega-1 can explain it some more.

    > Thanks for the new information! [...] Maybe you want to update this list if MorphOS 2.6
    > will be released in the future and tell others which PowerMacs G4 it works on?

    I take it this should rather be directed at boot_wb, not at me ;-)
  • »31.08.10 - 22:36
    Profile
  • Just looking around
    g4QS_redux
    Posts: 9 from 2010/8/25
    From: Germany
    > I take it this should rather be
    > directed at boot_wb, not at me ;-)

    Err, sure, actually the whole text I wrote was not directed only to you, but to anybody who is interested, maybe. Just my two cents, and I quoted you just to refer to a certain context.


    >> Power Macintosh G4 (PCI) boards are, however, limited to a maximum
    >> of 1GB physical memory

    > Yes, but that's PowerMac1,2, not PowerMac3,1.

    Sure, I know. I looked all those IDs up, just to do the readers of this forum a favour, for they are talking about them all the time - and though I am used to talking about "Sawtooths", "Quicksilvers", and such. It doesn?t really matter, though imho this is kind of boring and confusing.

    -----

    @Andreas_Wolf:
    > But I'd rather have a pointer to an actual and
    > official Apple document which states 1 GiB RAM
    > maximum for PowerMac3,1. That's what I
    > implicitely asked for in the first place.

    I don?t see the point in searching for a pointer. What would that be good for? If I had always followed Apple?s advice, I?d have bought a new Mac at least once in a period of two years within the past twenty years. ;-)

    I guess we are just interested in different aspects, for, though I?m prepared to take note of a company?s "official" documentation on their products, I consider third-party information on what customers can actually do with a product to be even more valuable.


    >> At the point in time these early G4 Macs were
    >> released, in 1999 or something, 512MB bars for
    >> these machines were simply not available to
    >> average customers

    > ...which didn't prevent Apple from specifying
    > their PowerMac3,1 (and PowerMac3,3) machines
    > for 1.5 GiB RAM maximum back then, which implies
    > the use of at least two 512 MiB bars.

    You mean "technically" specifying, in a sense that it would be possible to use memory bars which at the release date of a mainboard did not even exist? No, of course Apple would not unnecessarily restrict their (at the time) Power Mac G4 flagship series unless this is technically necessary (or unless Apple profit in other ways from such behaviour, e.g. by using cheaper components). Thus, Apple did not technically prevent their customers from using 4 x 512MB in one of the first PowerMacs, G4 (AGP). Usually, however, the specifications released e.g. in adverts (i.e. what is "officially" supported/featured by a hardware product of the Apple company) do not necessarily correspond to what customers can actually do with their equipment; just see lowendmac.com, to give you an example. I guess that if this would be technically possible (I don?t know) and if a hardware company had created 1GB memory bars for early PowerMac G4 computers, Apple would have neither prevented their customers from memory upgrading nor encouraged them to do so: After all, they want to sell new hardware and software products. Yet, if customers smash their computers as a result from their experiments this is no longer Apple?s problem: Just the usual story.

    Thus, I do not really mind about such things apart from what I can possibly do with my computing equipment: I?ll just wait for the next release of MorphOS and see if I can get it running, but to me it will be nothing more but a hobby project.
  • »01.09.10 - 00:41
    Profile
  • Yokemate of Keyboards
    Yokemate of Keyboards
    Andreas_Wolf
    Posts: 11707 from 2003/5/22
    From: Germany
    > actually the whole text I wrote was not directed only to you

    I find it strange that you write "I really like boot_wb's list" which obviously can't be directed at boot_wb (else it would read "...your list"), and in the next sentence you suddenly mean to direct at him and thank him, but without explicitly addressing him neither in that sentence nor before. That's not reasonable in my book, but maybe it's just me and my desire for (con)textual coherency ;-)

    > but to anybody who is interested, maybe. Just my two cents, and I quoted
    > you just to refer to a certain context.

    Keep in mind that this forum engine uses real threads (see threaded view), even if you personally might use flat view only. With consideration of the thread concept it doesn't make sense to hit reply to a certain posting and also answer other postings and other users with one and the same posting of yours.

    >> that's PowerMac1,2, not PowerMac3,1.

    > Sure, I know.

    Good, then I take it you also know that the fact that PowerMac1,2 supports only 1 GiB maximum doesn't explain boot_wb's statement that PowerMac3,1 supports only 1 GiB maximum, which the part of my posting you answered to was about.

    > imho this is kind of boring and confusing.

    I don't understand. What's boring and confusing?

    > I don't see the point in searching for a pointer.

    I hoped that boot_wb would give it. As he obviously took that information from somewhere I conclude that he wouldn't even have to search because he'd know where that information is located.

    > What would that be good for?

    Just to know where that information stems from, call it curiosity. And btw, if you're not interested in what the source for it is then you shouldn't have answered my wondering with your easy to refute theories in the first place :-P

    > If I had always followed Apple's advice...

    I think you're assuming too much. I'm not talking about following Apple's advice.

    > I guess we are just interested in different aspects

    Maybe, but not in the way you think.

    > though I'm prepared to take note of a company's "official" documentation on their
    > products, I consider third-party information on what customers can actually do
    > with a product to be even more valuable.

    Same here. But it seems boot_wb is not of our opinion, else he wouldn't list the official but inaccurate specs more prominently than the more factual but inofficial specs. In fact, the inofficial specs are hidden in a way that even analogkid missed them.

    > You mean "technically" specifying, in a sense that it would be possible to use
    > memory bars which at the release date of a mainboard did not even exist?

    It's only *your* idea that 512 MiB modules didn't exist back then, not mine. Fact is that Apple listed the PowerMac3,1 at release time *in 1999* as supporting up to 1.5 GiB RAM which is only possible with 512 MiB bars in existence. So your idea that they might have listed the PowerMac3,1 as only supporting up to 1 GiB RAM because no 512 MiB bars were available is nonsense in two regards:
    - They didn't list it as supporting up to only 1 GiB RAM in the official specs, but as supporting up to 1.5 GiB RAM. See my link for reference.
    - They explicitly listed 512 MiB modules as an option in the official specs. See my link for reference. And ask yourself how Apple could have tested the machine with 1.5 GiB RAM without 512 MiB modules being available.

    > No, of course Apple would not unnecessarily restrict their (at the time)
    > Power Mac G4 flagship series unless this is technically necessary (or unless
    > Apple profit in other ways from such behaviour, e.g. by using cheaper components).

    But that's the whole point of my wondering. Opposed to what boot_wb's list says I do *not* believe that Apple restricted the PowerMac3,1 in specs to 1 GiB RAM because I have *proof* (see my links) that they listed it as supporting up to 1.5 GiB RAM at release time in 1999. See the Apple press release for reference:

    http://web.archive.org/web/20040529100946/www.apple.com/pr/library/1999/aug/31powermac.html

    > Thus, Apple did not technically prevent their customers from using
    > 4 x 512MB in one of the first PowerMacs, G4 (AGP).

    Yes, of course, nobody said otherwise, but I'm afraid you don't understand what I'm talking about. I'm *not* talking about Apple preventing anybody from doing anything, but to the contrary about them *not* preventing (neither technically nor in specs only) anyone from putting more than 1 GiB RAM (and up to 1.5 according to specs and even 2 technically) into the PowerMac3,1. That's my whole point. You were arguing that Apple might have had reasons for restricting it to only 1 GiB RAM in specs, for instance because 512 MiB modules were not available at release time (and thus the maximum would indeed have been only 1 GiB, i.e. 4 x 256 MiB). But as they obviously didn't ever restrict it to 1 GiB in specs your arguments were void.
    This reasoning has nothing to do with the reasons Apple might have had for restricting it to 1.5 GiB in specs instead of specifying it up to 2 GiB RAM the machine can really take.
  • »01.09.10 - 02:33
    Profile
  • Just looking around
    g4QS_redux
    Posts: 9 from 2010/8/25
    From: Germany
    @Andreas:

    > With consideration of the thread concept it doesn't make sense
    > to reply to a certain posting and also answer multiple other
    > postings and other users with it.

    Ok, I was not aware of that and I apologize for being incoherent. I do not use these functions, for I am not used to it from other forums I frequent, and I have no intentions of using these functions in the future. Yet, considering all of these aspects I think it is not worth the efforts to ensure that nobody finds strange what I write.


    > And btw, if you're not interested in what the source for it is
    > then you shouldn't have answered my wondering with your easy to
    > refute theories in the first place :-P

    I already stated what kind of information I am interested in and I guess you should leave it up to me which wonderings I intend to answer and which ones I neglect. Thank you.


    > Opposed to what boot_wb's list says I do *not* believe that
    > Apple restricted the PowerMac3,1 in specs to 1 GiB RAM because
    > I have *proof* (see my links) that they listed it as supporting
    > up to 1.5 GiB RAM at release time in 1999.

    Come on, you're not talking about your link

    http://support.apple.com/kb/SP123

    now, are you? Or rather about another one?

    As you can see yourself this one was updated in October 2008. Thus, it does not equal the information at release time in 1999, for who knows what parts of the information provided were added/removed/have changed. If you are interested in historical aspects you might think of considering historical sources. Whatever Apple provided as information in 1999, the information available on their web site today was written with users of 2008 in mind.


    As I do not want to argue about this any longer I am off now and you, Andreas, might or might not find somebody else to discuss it, full stop.
  • »01.09.10 - 03:46
    Profile
  • Just looking around
    g4QS_redux
    Posts: 9 from 2010/8/25
    From: Germany
    Ok, thanks again for the link to the press release you have added subsequently. It proves your assumption was correct. Yet, that?s it, and I am off.
  • »01.09.10 - 03:50
    Profile
  • Priest of the Order of the Butterfly
    Priest of the Order of the Butterfly
    boot_wb
    Posts: 874 from 2007/4/9
    From: Kingston upon ...
    Quote:


    Andreas_Wolf wrote:
    > X-Serve G4 range, [...] their model Identifiers are RackMac5.5.

    There's no "RackMac5.5" or "RackMac5,5". The Xserve G4 is RackMac1,1 and RackMac1,2, while the Xserve G5 is RackMac3,1.


    Hmmm, must have been numerical dyslexia kicking in (A bit worrying for an engineer). I'll update the post accordingly, thankyou.

    Quote:

    I don't know where boot_wb's "Max 1GB" for the PowerMac3,1 comes from, though.


    Considering I've referenced everything so thoroughly I'm a little disappointed ;-)
    It comes from the Apple manual reference [3] purporting to relate to both PCI and AGP models. Since this manual never refers to AGP expansions, I would propose that it is only relates to the PCI model, and Apple have just been lazy (and consequently misleading) in their documentation archive.

    I'll try to tidy up the OP a little in an attempt to remove this ambiguity.
    www.hullchimneyservices.co.uk

    UI: Powerbook 5,6 (1.67GHz, 128MB VRam): OS3.1, OSX 10.5.8
    HTPC: Mac Mini G4 (1,5GHz, 64MB VRam): OS3.1 (ZVNC)
    Audiophile: Efika 5200b (SB Audigy): OS3.1 (VNC + Virtual Monitor)

    Windows free since 2011!
  • »01.09.10 - 10:40
    Profile Visit Website
  • Priest of the Order of the Butterfly
    Priest of the Order of the Butterfly
    boot_wb
    Posts: 874 from 2007/4/9
    From: Kingston upon ...
    Quote:


    Btw, I really like boot_wb's list. Thanks for the new information! It has become an extensive overview for people who are interested in running future releases of MorphOS on PowerMac G4 hardware (apart from what is already possible, G4 mini and eMac 1,25). Maybe you want to update this list if MorphOS 2.6 will be released in the future and tell others which PowerMacs G4 it works on? The basis would be user reports, of course.


    Thanks, that's all I had hoped for. :-)

    I'll probably try to keep the thread accurate within its current scope (repairing any errors), but a broader compatibility thread would probably make it even more unmanageable. It's already at the stage where people are missing info (by not reading through), so I would not want to add more to it.
    Since it has proved useful to some I'd be happy to put together a comparison entry for the Morphzone library covering all models supported by MorphOS releases. It will allow me to create a more logical comparison structure (rather than a 'list').
    www.hullchimneyservices.co.uk

    UI: Powerbook 5,6 (1.67GHz, 128MB VRam): OS3.1, OSX 10.5.8
    HTPC: Mac Mini G4 (1,5GHz, 64MB VRam): OS3.1 (ZVNC)
    Audiophile: Efika 5200b (SB Audigy): OS3.1 (VNC + Virtual Monitor)

    Windows free since 2011!
  • »01.09.10 - 10:57
    Profile Visit Website