 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Mac Forum / General / Hardware / May 2006"Beige" G3 trouble
I'm loading a new disk for a relative's old G3, using mine. Now, mine boots up fine, the old drive which lives in it is fine, the network/keyboard/trackball all work. The CD-ROM drive installed 10.2 just fine. Partitioned 7.5G for 10.2, 20 for 9, the rest for whatever on an 80GB drive. I mention this to make it clear that the partitioning is right. So now I've got to load 9.2.1. That's the disk I found, so that's what I'm loading. I'll upgrade it after. I told it to boot off the CD-ROM drive. No joy. I get a gray screen with immovable pointer. I tried opt-cmd-PR, which seemed to work at first. No change. I've tried using the motherboard-based video rather than the Radeon for Mac card. I tried hitting the mb reset button for a few seconds. I tried removing the CD and hoping it'd boot from the main drive. I tried switching drives to my original one. I tried swearing at it. I haven't yet tried a rubber chicken. The only thing I haven't tried is replacing the PRAM battery. Does anyone have any ideas? I keep getting a gray screen, with rounded corners, and an immobile pointer.  SignatureLife is toxic. It leads to death and too much of it at once can kill you. > I'm loading a new disk for a relative's old G3, using mine. > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > anyone have any ideas? I keep getting a gray screen, with rounded > corners, and an immobile pointer. Not sure how much help this will be, but here are a couple of suggestions: 1. Start over and do the partitioning with your OS 9 disk. Try installing OS 9 first, then move on to X. 2. This probably isn't convenient, but it would be helpful if you had a friend with a different OS 9 CD. Seeing as how you've checked everything else out... Good hunting! SignatureNewsGuy.Com 30Gb $9.95 Carry Forward and On Demand Bandwidth > I'm loading a new disk for a relative's old G3, using mine. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > on an 80GB drive. I mention this to make it clear that the partitioning > is right. Some will tell you that I'm wrong, but from experience I know that OS9 also has to be in the first 8 GB. Otherwise you may experience unpredictable errors. One I have seen was that the CD drive was invisible (even non-existing in System profiler) when booted from HD. Now that was on a Rev.A iMac and an unpartitioned 10 GB drive. partitioning as for OS X solved the problem. When you get to that point, install 9 in the same partition as X. > So now I've got to load 9.2.1. That's the disk I found, so that's what > I'm loading. I'll upgrade it after. I told it to boot off the CD-ROM > drive. Is the 9.2.1 disk machine specific - e.g. for an iMac ? Also - is your firmware up to date ? SignatureI recommend Macs to my friends, and Windows machines to those whom I don't mind billing by the hour > Some will tell you that I'm wrong, but from experience I know that OS9 > also has to be in the first 8 GB. Otherwise you may experience [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > partitioning as for OS X solved the problem. > When you get to that point, install 9 in the same partition as X. Y'know, in the entire time I ran my own G3/G4 (got upgrade? :-D SonnetTech rocks!), I always had the two OSs in different partitions. I wonder if that explains some of the occasional weird crashes I'd get which would bring the machine back up in 9. Today, I managed to install 9 on the partition I'd set aside for that. Later, I got a serious case of disk directory corruption in the MacOS X partition after I installed ZIP100 software. Related? I can't say. I left the machine running DiskWarrior 3.0.3 from MacOS 9, which makes me a little nervous, but not much. If it doesn't work, I reload from disks. The system only has one app so far, and I just downloaded a new version of it anyway. If I have to reload, I'll just do it. Meanwhile, 9.2.1 is loaded, both other apps loaded in it and have been shown to work. And those three apps are all she's interested in. She's emphatically NOT a techie. Oh, and her peripherals. Which reminds me I should download the printer drivers for her so we don't have to d/l them tomorrow via her 28.8K modem. <O.O> Yes, I know. I intend to bring her a 56. And more ZIP media. And some memory (128MB currently). > Is the 9.2.1 disk machine specific - e.g. for an iMac ? Nope. I think I have such for my SE (System 6.0.0 and 6.0.2), my "beige" G3 (8.0), my (now deceased) Wallstreet (8.1), and my G5 (10.3.?). I don't have a 9 of that sort, as I didn't buy a machine while 9 was current. There's a Quadra 630 in there, but I bought it second-hand and don't think I have the original disks for it. > Also - is your firmware up to date ? Yep. But hers might not be. (looks) There's a firmware update for the stock ultra wide SCSI card, if we'd ordered it up-front, which neither of us did. Should be all set. BTW, if anyone knows of a Mac gig available for an experienced Mac guy, especially in western Massachusetts, please let me know. I'm available! SignatureLife is toxic. It leads to death and too much of it at once can kill you. > > Some will tell you that I'm wrong, but from experience I know that OS9 > > also has to be in the first 8 GB. Otherwise you may experience [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > wonder if that explains some of the occasional weird crashes I'd get > which would bring the machine back up in 9. The main reason for installing it in the OS X partition in this case would be to keep the system(s) within the first 8 GB. But YMMV. SignatureI recommend Macs to my friends, and Windows machines to those whom I don't mind billing by the hour > The main reason for installing it in the OS X partition in this case > would be to keep the system(s) within the first 8 GB. But YMMV. Since I had to erase 10.2.8 today due to a totally fried disk directory in that partition, if I'd installed 9 there too, I'd have had nothing left to boot with. This is why I never installed them together. SignatureLife is toxic. It leads to death and too much of it at once can kill you. > Some will tell you that I'm wrong, but from experience I know that OS9 > also has to be in the first 8 GB. I've read that before. I think the difference is that with OS X it's a hard and fast rule, whereas with OS 9 it's more reliable but not strictly necessary. SignatureMike Rosenberg <http://www.macconsult.com> Macintosh consulting services for NE Florida <http://www.cafepress.com/macconsult,macconsult4> Mac-themed T-shirts <http://bogart-tribute.net> Tribute to Humphrey Bogart |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.