| Click here to select a new forum. |
| Fastest Video Card Compatible With OS X And 9 |
Posted by: CC_333 on 2013-02-23 13:44:23
Hi,
I am interested in performing some video card upgrades to my MDD.
Everything else is just fine (dual 1.25 GHz CPUs, 2 GB RAM, 2x250 GB hard disks), I just want a video card.
Do any of you have any recommendations for cards which would work sufficiently in both Mac OS X (Quartz Extreme and/or Core Image support) and Mac OS 9.2.2 (fully accelerated, all color depths/resolutions available)?
Thanks,
c
|
Posted by: ClassicHasClass on 2013-02-23 18:11:29
If you want the fastest card, the GeForce 4 Ti (I think the 4600 was the last OS 9 compatible unit), but the 9000 Pro has more VRAM.
|
Posted by: Trash80toHP_Mini on 2013-02-23 21:25:18
Do OS-X only VidCards work fine for running 9.2.2 in Classic Mode?
|
Posted by: CC_333 on 2013-02-23 22:32:37
Do OS-X only VidCards work fine for running 9.2.2 in Classic Mode? I suppose they would (i don't see why not), but I am interested in the best one that would work under native OS 9, yet also be fully capable in OS X with QE/CI support.
ClassicHasClass's suggestion looks good, although I'd like to say that I'm not necessarily after a card with lots of VRAM (and such cards, particularly for these older machines, seem to be more expensive).
Also, I just realized something: I have an ADC display hooked up to it right now, and a non-Apple card will not have a port for such, so then I'd have to get a ADC to DVI converter. Ugh...
Are any G5-era cards with ADC ports known to have driver support under OS 9? Are any known to be compatible with the MDD G4s?
This is becoming somewhat more complicated than I anticipated...
c
|
Posted by: MacJunky on 2013-02-23 22:37:44
A non-Apple card would need to be a flashed card. And no, G5 cards are not the cards you are looking for as they are all too new for accel under OS 9.
An Apple GeForce 4 Ti is what you want if you want the fastest OS 9 card. They actually shipped in QuickSilver 2002 and MDD models(IIRC), by the way. and a GF 4MX is slower than a GF 4Ti.
|
Posted by: CC_333 on 2013-02-23 22:59:12
Hi,
That is very good information! I will see about someday getting a GeForce 4 Ti for my QuickSilver (it needs a new ATA cable, so it'll have to wait for awhile.)
As for the MDD, I thought about it, and since it will be primarily an OS X/Ubuntu machine, OS 9 compatibility isn't all that important.
So I guess now I'm looking for the fastest card which is compatible with the machine. Bonus points if it offers easy compatibility with Linux (Debian and Fedora, in particular).
I'd do this research myself, but right now I'm just going to go to bed.
Good night everybody |) !
c
|
Posted by: MacJunky on 2013-02-23 23:23:04
If you are willing to flash a card and also willing to dump that ancient ADC display(replacing it with a Dell Ultrasharp or something else good) then you should be looking at this:
http://themacelite.wikidot.com/compatibility
Otherwise, OEM G5 cards are a No Go.
http://www.xlr8yourmac.com/Graphics/FX5200_Mods_for_G4/FX5200_G4mods.html
You are essentially screwed if you want ADC.
|
Posted by: Macdrone on 2013-02-24 01:18:14
I use a stock ADC card from a G5 in my MDD. What's the issue there? I don't use it much, just wondering why you would say no go.
|
Posted by: Macdrone on 2013-02-24 01:21:28
That article says G4 digital audio so it doesn't have ADC connection. The MDD does so it should be fine as far as I know.
|
Posted by: MacJunky on 2013-02-24 08:15:28
Ah, right, forgot about that.
But either way none of the cards that shipped in a G5 will have acceleration under OS 9.
|
Posted by: ClassicHasClass on 2013-02-24 08:34:09
Do OS-X only VidCards work fine for running 9.2.2 in Classic Mode? Yes, for standard display. For things that use QD3D RAVE or OS 9-era OpenGL, however, it might be iffy. Some might work, some might not.
|
Posted by: Trash80toHP_Mini on 2013-02-24 09:03:52
that's good to know, if I ever find my the 9.2.2 CD from the QS'02 set, I'll be running it in Classic mode to test the USB-2 card. Having a FireWire Zip 250 sitting atop the case has alleviated some of that desire.
Somehow waiting for a Zip to read or write is far less painful than doing the same for thumblets and chiplets under USB-1 when transferring files to/from the USB-2 NetBooks. :beige:
|
Posted by: CC_333 on 2013-02-24 17:10:12
and also willing to dump that ancient ADC display Dump it?! The whole point of this thread was so I could keep it! (I haven't had it but for a few months, and I really like it; I'd rather convert it to DVI than get rid of it).
Anyway, that might be an option, if I convert the ADC display to DVI.
However, because this isn't my main machine, and I don't want to put tons of money into it, I'd rather stick with Apple OEM cards (or aftermarket cards which offer an ADC port), if any exist that will meed most of my requirements (full OS 9 support isn't terribly important for this machine; if I can boot into it and use it for some stuff with basic graphics, that's fine).
Somehow waiting for a Zip to read or write is far less painful than doing the same for thumblets and chiplets under USB-1 when transferring files to/from the USB-2 NetBooks. :beige: I think Zip, especially with a FireWire connection, will almost certainly be faster than USB (were many/most USB Zip drives 1.1 or were some of them 2.0?)
By the way, a normal, retail OS 9 disk should work, unless you have a video card which the normal disk doesn't have drivers for (or has ones which crash) or some other non-standard-for-that-machine thing.
c
|
Posted by: Macdrone on 2013-02-24 17:21:47
Umm I think his MDD will not use a retail OS9 disk. None of mine will. My quicksilver will but the non FW 800 MDD board I had had a tizzy with my 9.2.1 disk. I dont have a 9.2.2 disk or the OEM but I am pretty sure the retail disk did not have the drivers for OS 9 on the MDD or laptops that would still Boot OS9. Every post or thread I found mentions a OEM disk for it.
|
Posted by: CC_333 on 2013-02-24 17:38:21
Hi,
I meant the QuickSilver 2002. That I think will boot with a retail disk.
As for the MDD, I agree. Retail disks probably don't work (I've never tried, but it makes sense since it was released after the last retail version of OS 9 (a trend that continues to this day; a machine will not boot an OS that was released before it was (usually)).
c
|
Posted by: Macdrone on 2013-02-24 17:48:24
I agree the Quicksilver will. I didnt see him talking about that I may have missed it. I do know the G5 cards work just fine in the MDD in OS X so he can keep his ADC with those and they are getting pretty cheap these days with all the air cooled processors biting the dust these days. I have two working dual 2.0's and they were both "dead" when I got them. Only one needed a processor tho. Lots of bad techs out there I am thinking, or they just dont care or both.
|
Posted by: CC_333 on 2013-02-24 18:05:59
Lots of bad techs out there I am thinking, or they just dont care or both. Well, it's good for us collectors, I guess 🙂 .
I'll look around for a card from a G5, then.
My budget's pretty small for now, but I'll see about getting one.
The main reason I want it is for better performance under OS X and Ubuntu (OS X is okay, but Ubuntu really stinks with the Radeon 9000 that's in there now).
Off a huntin' I go!
c
|
Posted by: Gorgonops on 2013-02-25 16:34:52
Ubuntu really stinks with the Radeon 9000 that's in there now ... Honestly, I suspect you're not going to find what you're looking for. If you asked me for a good card to run Linux on a non-Intel platform I'd almost certainly say "Radeon", as Nvidia cards (with very few exceptions) don't support 3D acceleration unless you're using the intel-only binary Linux drivers. A 9600 or 9800XT (those appear to be the last ADC equipped cards) will certainly be faster than a 9000, but I used to run Linux on a 1.33Ghz AMD with a 7500 (slower than a 9000) and video performance was never an issue. Sure it was years ago but that thing could run Half-Life and friends under Wine at quite high resolutions without breaking a sweat. Are you certain that:
A: Acceleration is enabled? Doing a quick google leads me to think that you may well have it turned off, as it appears to be by default on a lot of different Mac hardware combinations. Try running "glxinfo" and seeing if it actually says you're getting hardware assist. Or:
B: What looks like "video slowness" isn't actually something else? Ubuntu, if you're talking about regular Ubuntu and not Kubuntu or Xubuntu or whatever, has gotten pretty fat. Speaking from recent experience a 2.8ghz Pentium 4 with a Radeon X300 doesn't run it that great and that's a machine that most of the time will be running rings around a G4.
If acceleration works and you're not being ridonkulous with desktop effects or animations the card you have *should* be good enough compared to the rest of your box. I'd highly recommend doing some more fiddling before blowing cash on something that might not help.
|
| 1 |