 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Mac Forum / General / Portable Macs / October 2004help with 1400c/166
Just won an ebay auction, and my 1400c is on the way. It comes with a Global Village 56k modem/ethernet card, but which driver do I need? The Global Village website has several and is totally confusing. Can anyone provide a link to the proper driver for this card? Also, I've heard rumors of adding up to 1gb of virtual RAM using a PC card CompactFlash card adapter? Anyone had success with this? And, will my 166mhz processor be sufficient to run iTunes 2.0, or will a G3 upgrade be necessary? > Also, I've heard rumors of adding up to 1gb of virtual RAM using a PC > card CompactFlash card adapter? Anyone had success with this? ....CF is used as a normal changeable media, but is much slower than a hard disk, so better use a hard disk for the VR. 1 GB seems a rumour to me, and I can't see any good in using it at all: VR is NOT just like real RAM and it costs a lot fo CPU-time remapping forth and back from harddisk to phys. RAM. As a common guideline one should have at least as much phys. RAM as needed for the apps you run. So 1 GB of VR would not really be helpfull... I tried installing a small startable system on a 64MB card, that worked well. > CF is used as a normal changeable media, but is much slower than a > hard disk, so better use a hard disk for the VR. Surely CF (16Mb/sec for early revisions, 66Mb/sec for generation 3) is as fast or faster than the hard disk (16-30 Mb/sec in the drives that 1400s would have). It would also use far less power. > 1 GB seems a rumour to > me, and I can't see any good in using it at all: VR is NOT just like > real RAM and it costs a lot fo CPU-time remapping forth and back from > harddisk to phys. RAM. Much less time and energy with a CF card. However the real problem is that the CF cards have a limited read/write cycle - constant access from VM would wear the card out fairly quickly I think. Also, there are many 1Gb CF cards on the market - it's not a rumour. You can actually get 4 Gb cards - see http://www.sandisk.com for details. Cheers, Matthew. > Surely CF (16Mb/sec for early revisions, 66Mb/sec for generation 3) is > as fast or faster than the hard disk (16-30 Mb/sec in the drives that > 1400s would have). It would also use far less power. oops? 66MB/sec over PCMCIA in a 1400? Really? PB1400 has Type II, means: > The CompactFlash card specification version 2.0 supports data rates >_up to_ 16MB/sec... (http://www.compactflash.org/faqs/faq.htm#What_is) And what does 16MB/sec mean? Read/Write? I recently bought an SD-Card (SanDisk Ultra II) that promised me 9MB/sec as highest available rate... and early CFs effectively have been nearly twice as fast?? Aren't there other facts stopping fast transfer in real life? (latency?) What I can tell from real life: the CF was much slower when booting from it than the slowest (built in) hard disk ever had been. (even measured from the time the system was found) Saving or copying to CF was a floppy-like adventure. > Also, there are many 1Gb CF cards on the market - it's not a rumour. ...my doubt pointed to 1GB VM under MacOS, not the capacity of CFs. What could be the advantage using 1GB VM (I am not sure it is possible at all) on a 64MB machine? Energy consumption might be an argument using CFs, maybe. Unfortunately the 1400 is a battery eater anyway, no matter how careful you handle consumption. Greetings Frank > What I can tell from real life: the CF was much slower when booting from > it than the slowest (built in) hard disk ever had been. (even measured > from the time the system was found) Saving or copying to CF was a > floppy-like adventure. I used to use a CF card from a digital camera with my 1400 - seemed quick, but I never took the trouble to investigate as you have. Shows impressions can be wrong! > > Also, there are many 1Gb CF cards on the market - it's not a rumour. > ...my doubt pointed to 1GB VM under MacOS, not the capacity of CFs. Good point ... > What could be the advantage using 1GB VM (I am not sure it is possible > at all) on a 64MB machine? I reckon you'd be better off booting from it as well as using it as a VM store - no idea whether the 1Gb VM is feasible under 9, but I suspect it would be since Classic under OS X gives a 1Gb virtual machine. Actually, that's emulated "real" memory, not emulated VM, so I guess the question is open. Should be simple to stipulate a 1Gb VM file on any OS 9 machine with a large enough HD. As to the usefulness ... only if you never wanted to close an application ever again, I suppose. OS 9's performance would degrade due to other overheads if you did that, though. > Energy consumption might be an argument using CFs, maybe. > Unfortunately the 1400 is a battery eater anyway, no matter how careful > you handle consumption. So true - curse the fires in the 5300s which put Apple off LiIon batteries for a few years! Cheers, MK. |
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
|
©2008 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.