Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Mac Computers

This is topic Mac Computers in forum Film-Yak at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=001310

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 10-05-2002, 07:29 PM:

In the two truckloads of PC junk I bought, I found a Macintosh PowerBook 1400CS. It looks like it is in good condition, but since I don't have the external power source adapter, I can't power it up.

First question is:

What is the external adapter power output that I need to energize this thing?

The second question is, If this thing is any good, could it be used for the CP-500, CP-650, and the DTS programs (If they are written for MAC as well as PC?)

Thanks for the help - I would like to get this thing running and use it if at all possible.

Paul

Posted by Michael Gonzalez (Member # 593) on 10-05-2002, 07:48 PM:

When one of my cats chewed through the power cord of my Toshiba Satellite laptop, I bought a new Universal power supply at Best Buy. It ran about a $100.00 (damn cat). I am pretty sure that it was Mac compatable.

Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 10-05-2002, 11:59 PM:

Univeristy of Waterloo CIS Page

Seems that it needs a 45W, 24V adapter.

Apple Power Adapter List

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 10-06-2002, 01:35 AM:

Paul,

Don't look to the Mac to run anything you could use for setting up sound (Dolby Digital, SDDS, RTA programs, etc). The theater industry completely ignores Mac. Companies who write those programs should take a second look, though. OS X is incredibly stable and would be far more reliable in the field for people using those programs. How many times has your Dolby program crashed because you simply have too much porn and warez on your laptop? Well with Mac OS X, your large gigantic porn collection will not cause problems with your other programs, and there's really no Mac warez to speak of (that I know of). The bad thing is that Mac laptops are WAY more expensive.

Posted by Sean McKinnon (Member # 612) on 10-06-2002, 01:56 AM:

You could use a program called SOFT PC and run almost any windows program on your mac.

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 10-06-2002, 02:01 AM:

Oh, POOP! POOP POOP POOP!!!!!

Damn it, I thought I hit the jackpot!

MackinPOOP Stikes again...

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 10-06-2002, 03:16 AM:

Paul:

You would need the Macintosh PowerBook 45W AC Adapter.
Model No. M4402

A suitable alternative can be found at:
http://www.drbott.com/prod/db.lasso?code=5747-14AC

The 1400 is too slow to run Virtual PC (a Windows emulator). You'd need something faster like a (new) G3 iBook or the G4 Titanium PowerBook.

I have run Dolby setup software on my iBook but I had an issue with a cable and then I just gave up. I know that it can be done but I haven't had success yet.

As for RTA software...I am told that will run just fine, too...

...Just not on your 1400.

Sell it on eBay or give it to someone you know who doesn't have a computer yet. I used mine for internet/email access for a long time.

~Manny.

Posted by Sean McKinnon (Member # 612) on 10-06-2002, 03:31 AM:

Manny,

there are older versions of softpc which will run on that system. (My friend works for apple and he confirmed this)

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 10-06-2002, 11:19 AM:

Yes, but it won't be able to run the programs at an acceptable speed, especially when those programs look at results from the input (re: sound processor, etc) in real time.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 10-06-2002, 12:12 PM:

It depends on the vintage of the program and just what is being asked of it. I have "grown -up" on SoftPC from its earliest stages on through to the current Virtual PC 5 (different program that SoftPC). I still have both loaded on my iMac and both still work.

If you are running an older program like the R2, than the SoftPC emulation may be your best choice since the R2 is DOS based and SoftPC does ok with DOS and older Macs. Load500 and possibly Dras10 might do ok as well.

To run Win 3 programs (SDDS and such) It might work ok with the appropriate version of SoftPC...say SoftWindows or at least SoftPC Pro.

For the current 32-bit programs that require Win95 are better forget it...you will need Virtual PC and the older Mac just won't do it without you wanting to commit suicide.

Now back to the 1400...get a copy of MS-WORD 5.1 and you will have a wonderful word processor. Many people STILL think MS-WORD 5.1 was their finest in terms of speed and features and stability.

Likewise if you get the proper vintage of the older programs. The older programs were often faster than today's programs because they had to be...they didn't depend on the speed of the machine.

Steve

------------------
"Old projectionists never die, they just changeover!"

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 10-06-2002, 01:36 PM:

Paul--if nothing else, you should be able to use just about anything with a serial port to read/write the CP500 configuration. The manual shows you how to do it with Windows Terminal, but any sort of terminal emulator with the ability to capture text should work for that purpose.

I've actually contemplated the idea of a multiplex with a single computer connected to a terminal server (basically a box with a bunch of serial ports and some specialized software...something like a Xylogics Annex or Livingston Portmaster), which, in turn, is connected to each of the processors. This would allow centralized storage of all of the settings for the entire multiplex and easy re-loads without needing to carry around a laptop.

Posted by Jeffry L. Johnson (Member # 453) on 10-06-2002, 02:23 PM:

A PowerBook 1400cs/117 is my main machine for email and newsgroups.

PowerBook 1400cs/117 Specs
Macintosh PowerBook Series

BTI makes batteries and AC adapters for the 1400.

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 10-06-2002, 10:39 PM:

Thanks for the help. Appreciate it. I think I will haul that thing into a MackinSmack dealer and see if will power up. I'm not going to spend any money on that thing if it is a hunk of junk. It'll make a nice door stop for a projection booth.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 10-06-2002, 10:42 PM:

A Mac is NEVER a hunk of junk!

Steve

------------------
"Old projectionists never die, they just changeover!"

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 10-06-2002, 11:05 PM:

I know THAT'S right!

I still have my 1400. I'm toying with using it strictly in the kitchen for running the cookbook software and keeping a grocery list.

The 1400 was plagued, however, by a rash of faulty CD-ROM drives.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 10-07-2002, 06:28 PM:

To be quite honest, the newest generation of G4 Mac towers are priced pretty competitively against many PCs.

A 1GHz G4 CPU with 1MB of L3 cache is roughly the equivalent in CPU muscle as a 2.53 GHz Pentium IV. And all the new G4 towers are equipped with TWO G4 CPUs. So for $2,500, you get a dual-1GHz Mac with DVD burning capability, and with the newest 10.2 Jaguar OS, you can network directly with your old PC without having to buy any extra software. Right now, you get big discounts on MS Office for Mac and Adobe InDesign 2.0 (which costs $699) for free. That's not a bad deal at all even with this day and age of very aggressive PC pricing. I just wish the software part of the equation were a less bitter pill to swallow.

I just visited the websites of Dell, Mircon, Gateway and a couple others. To get comparable CPU muscle, DVD burning, multi-monitor capability and other things, you'll be spending over $2,000 for a single CPU Wintel PC (I couldn't find anything outside of server configurations for multiprocessor PCs on any of their websites).

Anyway, as a long time PC user, I'm fixing to buy a new Mac and start collecting software for it.

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 10-07-2002, 06:47 PM:

Dell's "Precision Workstation 530" model supports dual-CPUs:

Dell Precision Workstations

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 10-07-2002, 07:48 PM:

For some reason, desktop multiprocessor (SMP) systems haven't really caught on in the Windows world. They're pretty common in the Unix world (I'm typing this on a dual-CPU Sun Ultra 2, which is an older workstation, but still quite nice), and apparently in the Mac world as well. I'd love to see one of the high-end Macs with OS X; I suspect that I would quite like it as a desktop machine, as Macs seem to have many of the benefits of workstation hardware (e.g. tight integration of hardware and OS and a high degree of reliability, as things tend to "just work"), while being significantly less expensive than real workstations from Sun, SGI, etc.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 10-07-2002, 08:15 PM:

Well Scott, you are welcome to come over to my house and try out my dual 1ghz G4 with Mac OS X.2. It even offers the "terminal" so you can type in your favorite UNIX commands! And to make things even better, the Terminal window can be TRANSPARENT! Life cannot get any better than that!

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 10-07-2002, 09:32 PM:

I guess Dell's "latest and greatest" tagline isn't meant for their top quality workstation line. The 340 series uses regular P4 CPUs, but you don't get the option for dual processors. The 530 series offers dual CPU capability in P4 Xeon processors with 512kb of L2 cache.

In configuring a dual Xeon system with similar appointments in hardware as the dual-G4 1GHz Mac, I was shocked at how much more expensive the systems turned out to be. A dual-P4 2.6GHz setup with 512MB of RDRAM, 80GB HDD, DVD+RW+R and WinXP Pro came in at a whopping $3880! And that is with no monitor included and the standard Quadro4 video card downgraded to an entry level 32MB RadeonVE adapter. It took dropping dual-Xeon CPU speeds to the minimum 1.8GHz spec, shrinking the RAM and the hard disc to get the price down to just under $2700.

I am surprised as well on how multiprocessing PCs have never really taken off on the Windows side, given that WindowsNT has had SMP support in it from the OS launch back in 1993. Dual processor Intel board designs have come and gone. I've got an old (and dead) SCSI PII400MHz dual system. The first Pentium Pro 200MHz Micron computer I had featured dual CPU sockets. I remember that it wasn't hard to configure a PC with four PPro CPUs back in the mid 1990s.

And the multi-threaded apps have been there for a long time. Adobe Photoshop on NT has been multiprocessor enabled since version 3.0. Other apps like Premiere, After Effects, Lightwave3D, 3D Studio Max and Wright Design have been able to take advantage of SMP.

But the problem is (as you can see from the price list) the cost of doing SMP on the PC side is often surprisingly high. And too many people on the PC side are just interested in getting by cheap.

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 10-07-2002, 09:42 PM:

When I worked for game developer Dynamix (Sierra On-Line), we bought a Compaq dual-CPU workstation to be the master server in a 3D Max rendering farm. It was probably something like 300MHz processors, 512MB RAM, high-performance SCSI hard drive, NT4. Turned out to be only nominally faster than a single-CPU 300MHz machine in speed of rendering images. Win2K seems to be far superior to NT in its SMP support. I have no idea how well 3D Max took advantage of SMP back then... Apple's newest systems are indeed very attractive technically and price-wise.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 10-07-2002, 11:09 PM:

3D animation programs have been somewhat inconsistent on what parts of the app utilize SMP and which parts do not. Most any professional-level 3D app (Lightwave3D, 3DS Max, Maya & Softimage) uses SMP in rendering. But many other parts of the program may only use one CPU.

Overall, I think Apple is making a good move with this dual-CPU redesign of their G4 towers. That's a good way to get around the misleading slower clock of their RISC CPUs.

The only slight downside I see about the new G4 towers is their slower 133MHz PC2100 DDR memory. You have 150MHz PC2400, 169MHz PC2700 and 188MHz PC3000 DDR memory on the market (not to mention the even faster quad-channel DDR memory used on top end gaming cards). Pentium IV PCs are using PC800 and PC1066 Rambus RIMMs. I would like to have seen Apple adopt a faster system bus to use those faster types of DDR memory or Rambus memory. The PC2100 DDR configuration seems like a cost cutting deal to me. Still, it beats the crap out of an old PC100MHz or PC133MHz SDRAM configuration.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 10-07-2002, 11:22 PM:

So just what projects did you work on? Leasure Suit Larry? Any of the Kings Quest series?

Steve

------------------
"Old projectionists never die, they just changeover!"

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 10-07-2002, 11:57 PM:

I got rid of that thing. Tossed it in the garbage. I decided I was not going to buy an adapter for 85 bucks, a Floppy Drive, modem, a new battery, or anything else it needed.

Besides, it didn't power up. The MAC dealer said it would cost about 75 bucks to see what was wrong with it, and then it would probably be too expensive to repair. I saw another one just like it for $349.00 that was running, so that should say something.

I took the screws out of mine, and pryed it open like a clamshell, and tossed it in a trash can at a local rest area. When I drove off, I said to myself, "Now it is a GOOD Mac!"

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 10-08-2002, 02:49 AM:

The problem I've always had with Macs has been inflexibility and the much higher cost of peripherals and software relative to those for PCs.

As for dual processor PC platforms, they don't seem to be sold very much in ready-assembled packages (the Dell example above notwithstanding). But there are some well-performing, sensibly priced dual processor motherboards on the market (e.g. the Asus A77266-D, which takes two Athlon processors) for those who want to go down the self-build route. IMHO, Windows 2000 can deliver cost-effective performance and stability improvements with a dual motherboard and mid-range processors when compared with the cost of a single, state-of-the-art processor.

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 10-08-2002, 11:04 AM:

Steve: King's Quest and Leisure Suit Larry were developed at the main Sierra location in Bellevue. Dynamix (here in Eugene) did games like Red Baron, Aces of the Deep, Tribes & Tribes 2, Starsiege, Incredible Machine, and all the 3D-Ultra pinball games.

Apple: One of my beefs with Apple's latest generation of products, especially the X-Servers, is they use IDE hard drives as a cost-savings measure. IDE drives are much less expensive than SCSI. Unfortunately the MTBF and general performance specs for IDE are also lower than SCSI. I suspect SCSI drives go through a more rigorous quality-control process than IDE drives, but that's just my theory. IMHO, real servers should have SCSI drives. Where I'm working now, in 1 year we've had 5 IDE hard drives go bad out of a total of 14. Our main server has 8 SCSI drives, and none have failed. Small sample, but consistant with my past experience...

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 10-08-2002, 12:05 PM:

Ah...I remember Red Baron....

Steve

------------------
"Old projectionists never die, they just changeover!"

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 10-08-2002, 01:16 PM:

Agreed with David--Apple shouldn't have abandoned SCSI, especially since Macs are commonly used for I/O intensive tasks (e.g. sound/video editing).

In addition to being more reliable than IDE, SCSI is a real "win" in that it makes it very easy to connect many devices to the same SCSI controller (whereas IDE is limited to two devices per controller).

All of my home machines (except for a laptop) use SCSI; at work, most of the servers that I run use it as well (usually with some form of hardware or software RAID), with exceptions for a few machines that are doing noncritical, non I/O-intensive tasks.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 10-08-2002, 02:49 PM:

Ummmm, you can get your Mac installed with a SCSI card (all types) for about $25 straight from Apple. Just because they come with an IDE drive doesn't mean you can't have SCSI. You can even order them with SCSI drives installed if you want. Check the Apple site and you'll see that SCSI has hardly been forgotton or abandoned. It is alive and well in the Mac world.

From Apple's site on older SCSI support (the card costs $25):
The Ultra SCSI PCI card lets you use older external SCSI devices such as tape drives, scanners, and hard disks with your new Power Mac G4 or Macintosh Server G4. You can connect standard SCSI (SCSI-1), Fast SCSI (SCSI-2), and Ultra SCSI (also called Ultra Narrow SCSI) peripherals to the Ultra SCSI card. With the card installed, you can also start up your computer from externally connected drives.

This economical and convenient option lets you connect up to seven SCSI devices, as long as the total cable length measures no more than 6 meters, or about 18 feet. The card supports cable lengths of 1.5 meters when running in Ultra SCSI mode or 6 meters when running in SCSI-1 or SCSI-2 mode. Ultra SCSI mode supports transfer rates of up to 20 megabytes per second (MBps). SCSI-2 mode supports up to 10MBps, and SCSI-1 supports up to 5MBps. The Ultra SCSI card includes a 25- to 50-pin cable adapter.

On SCSI Hard drives:

Ultra160 SCSI hard drives
SCSI hard drives run at up to 10,000 rpm and will read or write data at much higher speeds than ATA drives. Apple offers Ultra160 SCSI drives, which come with a dual-channel Ultra160 SCSI card installed in one of the computer's PCI slots. Ultra160 SCSI can support up to 160 megabytes of data per second. These high-storage and high-performance drives allow both desktop and server customers the ultimate flexibility in data storage all conveniently configured within your Macintosh system.
For optimal performance, connect Ultra160 SCSI devices to the preinstalled dual-channel Ultra160 SCSI card. With the dual-channel Ultra160 SCSI card, you can also connect external SCSI devices on the second SCSI bus without affecting the performance of your internally connected Ultra160 SCSI drives.

Macs don't have SCSI? Not sure where that information came from.

PS - Dynamix was also responsible for the horrible 3DO game Stellar 7. Not sure, but I think there was an even worse version for the Sega CD. The best part of both games was the music and sound effects.

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 10-08-2002, 03:21 PM:

Go to the Apple on-line store for Xserve and you'll find that they clearly don't want to sell you SCSI hard drives. Only IDE drives are listed when custom-configuring a server. An optional Ultra-160 PCI SCSI card is listed as $200. Where did you get $25? I see no mention anywhere of internal hot-swappable SCSI drive support for Xservers, or hardware RAID. Internal hot-swap SCSI drives would require a different backplane for the drive bay(s).

Xserve

quote:
PS - Dynamix was also responsible for the horrible 3DO game Stellar 7. Not sure, but I think there was an even worse version for the Sega CD. The best part of both games was the music and sound effects.

Couldn't tell you, never played it myself. Just as some movies turn out as crap despite the best efforts of their makers, so do some video games. Thanks for pointing that out though.

Posted by Jason Burroughs (Member # 68) on 10-08-2002, 03:22 PM:

Western Digital makes some SCSI drives that spin at 15,000 RPM.

Serial ATA will change the ATA interface for the better, First Generation will have a throughput speed of at least 150Mbp/s with the ability to grow to over 500Mbp/s.

Posted by Ron Lacheur (Member # 1126) on 10-08-2002, 06:28 PM:

WD in my experience are lousy drives. I've seen lots with bad sectors only after a year in operation. Had nothing but good luck with Maxtor but I'm not sure of their quality sense they merged with Quantum.

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 10-08-2002, 07:34 PM:

I've used IDE drives for three long-form video projects and many commercials (which make the drives work a lot harder) and I say they work just fine. Good riddance to SCSI. It was a royal pain in the ass.

Still, as Joe said...SCSI is still out there for the having if you really wanted it badly enough.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 10-08-2002, 09:13 PM:

The $25 card is for the older SCSI's for the tower Macs. That'll give you compatibility with all the old, crappy SCSI stuff. You know, the stuff that was considered FAST last week.

I've never cared for SCSI. Everything must have it's own ID number, it must be properly terminated and cable length cannot exceed a certain amount. May have been cutting edge back in 1985, but is outdated by todays standards. Let's go with Firewire or something even better. Just plug it in and don't even think about trying to set it up, because it won't be necessary.

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 10-08-2002, 09:27 PM:

You guys are talking about 80's-era SCSI technology. Newer server-class systems with hot-swappable SCSI drives auto-assign the SCSI ID numbers. The slot the drive plugs into is "hard-wired" to a specific SCSI ID number. Termination is also automatic. No drive jumpers or switches to configure, and no terminators. Pretty much plug-and-play. Newer external SCSI subsystems have similar features, but cables are still a pain in the neck to deal with. High-end servers are going with fibre-channel and SAN (storage area network)...

I never said IDE is no good. IDE drives are an incredible value and they generally work fine. But in my experience, they are much more likely to abruptly fail than are SCSI drives (I just replaced a dead 40GB IBM IDE drive last week, less than 1 year old). Therefore I don't like the idea of using IDE in mission-critical network servers. When an 80GB IDE drive costs $120, while an 80GB hot-swappable SCSI drive costs $600 (or more), there are valid technical reasons for the price disparity. If Apple used SCSI or fiber-channel in the Xserver instead of IDE, the price of the box would be WAY higher. But its reliability and performance would also be better. Hot-swap SCSI should be offered as a factory option in that system for customers who want it and are willing to pay for it.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 10-09-2002, 12:59 AM:

I used to be a big SCSI fan, but to be quite brutally honest, SCSI is a standard that deserves unmerciful death. Sorry, but that's just how I feel and that is coming from some sobering experiences with SCSI. On pricing alone, you got $80 for a damned terminator here, another $60 for a Ultra SCSI to U2 SCSI HD adapter, and on and on and on and on and on. F**k that. Do a Format C: routine and install Windows clean on a SCSI? Good luck!! God forbid you're doing it on a system where the SCSI controller was integrated into the motherboard in a single chip solution.

Serial ATA would be great. But it is vaporware. And it may always remain as vaporware. Ultra ATA is trying to incorporate RAID capability. But Firewire can do it better. And with Firewire2 looming on the horizon, the Ultra320 SCSI standard may certainly be rendered moot. Hell, with the bandwidth USB 2.0 supports we may soon be seeing USB 2.0 external hard discs.

I'm rooting for things like Firewire and USB 2.0. ONE single type of cable connection. No f**king terminators or IRQs or "is this channel loaded up" nonsense. I realize SCSI is up to Ultra320 standards now. But you are still limited to 7 devices per channel and 15 devices total, with all the continued adapter and terminator headaches.

I've had a few SCSI computers in my time and my dual PII 400MHz was pretty much the last I will ever stomach owning. Items like SCSI based Zip drives and CD-RW drives were extremely problematic. The freaking Zip drive never ever worked right. If anyone is going to buy any kind of new SCSI based system DO NOT under any circumstances buy anything where SCSI is integrated into the motherboard chipset. That is pure, utter garbage.

I'm not very worried at all about the Macs running IDE drives standard instead of SCSI. With today's options, I say big deal. The IDE drives have enough I/O capacity and drive RPM speed to handle things like digital video streams. And then if you get into a situation where you need something better for brute force purposes, pick up a SanCube Firewire RAID disc box. One firewire cable, no terminators, no adapters, no headaches, just wide bandwidth drive performance.

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 10-09-2002, 02:29 AM:

I got an old laptop for fifty bucks. IBM compatible. If I can find my old Winblows 95 floppys, problem solved.

I loaded DOS 6.22 and Passgas 3.1 on it.

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 10-09-2002, 11:03 AM:

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear.

Workstations and utility servers: IDE is perfectly good and much less expensive. SCSI is unnecessary unless you want the nth degree of performance and reliability, and cost is not an issue.

Mission-critical servers: IDE bad. SCSI much better. Initial cost may be higher, but long-term reliability and performance are improved over IDE.

Older SCSI ZIP drives and other external SCSI peripherals that require user configuration of IDs, termination, etc. are a pain in the ass and obsolete.

Newer SCSI system designs for mission-critical applications DO NOT require messing with termination or SCSI ID numbers. I would avoid any such SCSI device like the plague (although tape backup systems still usually require configuration). Fortunately or unfortunately, most high-performance tape backup solutions for networks and servers are SCSI (or fiber-channel, or SAN). If a tape drive is IDE, it's a given that it's a consumer-grade piece of junk.

Firewire, serial ATA, etc: Bring it on!

Posted by Jason Burroughs (Member # 68) on 10-09-2002, 03:11 PM:

Actually, the hardware for Serial ATA is already entering the market place. There's even adaptors that will allow you to plug an ATA(100 133 etc) drive into a Serial ATA system. The data cable has 7 conductors, Power has 15 Conductors, allowing the drives to be hot-swapable.

More information available here: http://www6.tomshardware.com/storage/02q3/020812/